DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Just Shmooze => Topic started by: wayfe on May 16, 2019, 02:44:22 PM

Title: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: wayfe on May 16, 2019, 02:44:22 PM
I've been thinking a lot about abortion and what's going in the news lately.

I'm a frum woman, mother of 2, and being pro-life seemed almost instinctual to me. But beyond my personal beliefs, debating the legality or illegality of abortion requires understanding the (euphemistically named) pro-choice position.

So the defense agains the common pro-abortion arguments are as follows:

1. "My body, my choice": This argument (which often gets intertwined with the viability argument) imagines that since the fetus is inside the mother's womb and cannot survive on its own, it's considered part of the mother. This would be the equivalent of assuming that a car parked inside a garage is part of the house. Or that a cake baking in the oven is part of the oven. The viability argument isn't too sure-footed either. A 3-month-old baby would also die if they were left alone. A toddler would also die if no one would feed them. Some adult husbands would die if they weren't fed ;) . The fact that someone requires care doesn't mean that they don't have the right to exist.

2. "A fetus isn't a baby": Well, that's right, a fetus isn't a baby. Just the same way a baby isn't a child and a child isn't a teenager and a teenager isn't an adult. They're all at different developmental stages. But ultimately, they are all human. It's a human fetus. In fact, if you can handle it- take a look at these (http://https://www.liveaction.org/news/photos-two-babies-miscarried-7-8-weeks-share-truth-abortion/) first trimester images and tell me that this isn't a human.

3. The rape/incest case: As horrible and as tragic as these cases are, getting an abortion doesn't take away the rape. Furthermore, the unborn child isn't guilty of the crimes of his father. How can we justify taking someone's innocent life for a crime he didn't commit?

For the offensive play, pro-lifers point out the brutality of abortion.
Many people don't even know that most surgical abortions involve at the very least the dismemberment of the fetus. While rare, late term saline abortions have the baby undergo chemical burns from the inside out. If you have the stomach for it, you can google other late term abortion horrors.
You can learn about the actual details of an abortion procedure here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk/), it's not the same as having a cancerous, clump of tissue removed.

There is evidence (https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/338146/) that suggest that the fetus can feel pain from 16weeks and on:
Quote
we cannot deny that the fetal nervous system mounts protective responses to tissue injury. A physiological fetal reaction to painful stimuli occurs from between 16 and 24 weeks’ gestation on.


On the scientific front things seem clear. A fetus is it's own human being, with it's own distinct set of DNA.


But things get murkier- what do we say to those babies being born into poverty, into immature and even neglectful families, those born with conditions that will make their life a struggle? What about those babies who are simply unwanted? Are they better off dead?


What if in the future we will have guaranteed pain-free abortions? What if scientists could find incontrovertible truth that babies are not conscious prior to birth? Would that change things?


Pro-life proponents would still argue "no". And that brings us to the heart of the matter: the sanctity of life. And this is the underlying answer to all of the pro-life arguments. This is why it doesn't matter what Life is, or when exactly it starts. Life is precious. Life is the most. precious. thing. Even the life of an unwanted, inconvenient baby. Even the life of a rapist's child. Even the life of a baby with Down Syndrome. Even the life of a baby who will grow up to live a poor, hard, obstacle-ridden, mostly miserable life.


At least that's how I see it.


But this is no longer a cold-hard, logical, scientific truth. The sanctity of life is a uniquely religious idea. Because we are made in the image of G-d, that is why human life is precious. If we remove G-d from the picture- is life precious from an evolutionary standpoint? Is the 80-90 year lifespan of one (statistically prone to be) unremarkable human important among the millions of years, millions of species that precede and succeed it? Not much. Should this clump of molecules, this group of atoms matter more than this amoeba, that bacteria, this asteroid shooting, hurtling around in galaxy? And if this particular life will be difficult and often unhappy, then maybe it's even a kindness to kill it.


So for me, ultimately it's an issue of morality. And morality is inherently a religious constructs. Again, if nature is king and evolution dictates the progression of the world- why does social justice matter? In fact, in today's parlance, evolution is 'racist'! According to natural selection, it's only inevitable that 'the fittest' end up on top. That the smartest and strongest dominate and exploit the weaker isn't evil or unjust- it's only the way nature is designed!


So now, does immoral = illegal?
Should it?


As a frum jew, from a Torah perspective, something is illegal precisely because it is immoral. But is that something we should pursue in a secular government? What about separation of church and state?
I remember frum Jews posting somewhat celebratory messages when gay marriage was legalized in 2015. The government shouldn't dictate the terms of morality, they wrote.


But where is the line drawn? And what kind of arguments can be made when God is removed from the picture?


If you've made it this far- thanks! I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 16, 2019, 03:02:24 PM
...The viability argument isn't too sure-footed either. A 3-month-old baby would also die if they were left alone. A toddler would also die if no one would feed them. Some adult husbands would die if they weren't fed ;) . The fact that someone requires care doesn't mean that they don't have the right to exist.
Didn't read the rest yet, but that's not what viability means.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
Viability, as the word has been used in United States constitutional law since Roe v. Wade, is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced, when supported by up-to-date medicine. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions.
ETA: That means it includes being fed. A fetus that's considered not viable won't survive no matter what (0% at 21 weeks or less). A baby, toddler, etc will all survive when cared for properly.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: wayfe on May 16, 2019, 03:36:21 PM
Didn't read the rest yet, but that's not what viability means.ETA: That means it includes being fed. A fetus that's considered not viable won't survive no matter what (0% at 21 weeks or less). A baby, toddler, etc will all survive when cared for properly.

Proper care means different things at different stages of life. Why should that change the definition of what is human?

But this furthers my point later on, that if you don't believe in the divinely ordained sanctity of life, it's hard to make any pro-life argument.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ckmk47 on May 16, 2019, 03:45:15 PM
Today's choice for a mother with an unwanted pregnancy:
 #1 abortion. 
#2 keep the baby and bring it up in the unwanted/ abusive/ immature parent etc home. 
#3 bring to term, give birth and give away to a loving couple who want a baby.


The pro-life organizations should emphasize that the choice isn't only an abortion or a life stuck with the kid.  There's also the ability to be inconvenienced for 9 months and then walk away.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yos9694 on May 16, 2019, 04:01:16 PM
As a frum jew, from a Torah perspective, something is illegal precisely because it is immoral.

This is inaccurate. The Law defines morality, there are no innate morals.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: TimT on May 16, 2019, 04:03:04 PM
Today's choice for a mother with an unwanted pregnancy:
 #1 abortion. 
#2 keep the baby and bring it up in the unwanted/ abusive/ immature parent etc home. 
#3 bring to term, give birth and give away to a loving couple who want a baby.


The pro-life organizations should emphasize that the choice isn't only an abortion or a life stuck with the kid.  There's also the ability to be inconvenienced for 9 months and then walk away.
Isnt it more than “inconvenienced” ? It’s someone else controlling your body for 9 months, taking away every nutrient you intake, all the sicknesses that come along with it. Then comes the labor process. After you finally get through all that you now have the excess weight to lose.
How do you convince somebody who doesn’t even want the child or a rape victim to go through with it ?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: sguitarist18 on May 16, 2019, 04:07:34 PM
Didn't read the rest yet, but that's not what viability means.ETA: That means it includes being fed. A fetus that's considered not viable won't survive no matter what (0% at 21 weeks or less). A baby, toddler, etc will all survive when cared for properly.

The issue with this is that this changes over time - medical science today can help a younger fetus survive, where 30 years ago there would have been no chance. And it's a good bet that 30 years from now, a fetus at 20 weeks will have a significantly higher survival chance than today.

So considering that viability is NOT a practical question (no one is advocating removing the baby from the womb and letting it sink or swim), but rather a way of defining it as a separate person, it's difficult to understand using this kind of definition that is not based on the actual child's development.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 16, 2019, 04:18:32 PM
Now that was a megillah.

I'm not completely sure what point/question you're trying to make. It seemed like you were saying at one point that there's refutations to prochoice arguments. Then seem to say that if scientists find a way to make it painless those refutations fall away. I don't see how that answers it.

Regardless I don't like the idea of analysing laws based on logic. Laws never were logic it's always feelings. If someone feels that it's wrong it doesn't have to make sense and it doesn't have to be based on a religious idea. Same goes for the other side.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 16, 2019, 04:20:12 PM

But this furthers my point later on, that if you don't believe in the divinely ordained sanctity of life, it's hard to make any pro-life argument.


And what kind of arguments can be made when God is removed from the picture?

We adamantly believe in the sanctity of life because of what G-d writes in the Torah, so it really is irrelevant what an atheist would believe.   
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 16, 2019, 04:32:49 PM
This is inaccurate. The Law defines morality, there are no innate morals.
Spoken like a true liberal.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yos9694 on May 16, 2019, 04:37:21 PM
Spoken like a true liberal.

I can't tell if you mean that or are saying it ironically. Regardless, the Torah is the source of all morals and there is no debate about that among frum Jews.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 16, 2019, 04:45:47 PM
I can't tell if you mean that or are saying it ironically. Regardless, the Torah is the source of all morals and there is no debate about that among frum Jews.

Perhaps I don't follow you fully. Are you saying that without Torah there is no innate good or bad?
That is clearly wrong because before the giving of the Torah there was the Mabul which was a punishment for wrong.
Check out R. Nissam Goan's introduction to Shas printed in any Vilna Edition where he discusses this. See also Chovos Halvavos in his introduction.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 16, 2019, 04:51:54 PM
But where is the line drawn? And what kind of arguments can be made when God is removed from the picture?
The same morality that says you can't kill a child says you can't kill a fetus.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yos9694 on May 16, 2019, 05:13:10 PM
Perhaps I don't follow you fully. Are you saying that without Torah there is no innate good or bad?
That is clearly wrong because before the giving of the Torah there was the Mabul which was a punishment for wrong.
Check out R. Nissam Goan's introduction to Shas printed in any Vilna Edition where he discusses this. See also Chovos Halvavos in his introduction.

Histakel b'oiraisa u'bara alma. The world and its norms were established based on the Torah. For example, murder is not innately wrong, it is only wrong because the Torah teaches us so- the animal kingdom was created in such a way that killing is a necessity and not at all immoral. My original comment was to point out to OP that it is incorrect to say that the Torah forbade murder because murdering is immoral, but rather that murdering is immoral because the Torah says so.

Let's not hijack the thread any more. If I'm wrong and you want to continue telling me so, PM'ing is fine.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 16, 2019, 05:35:33 PM
Histakel b'oiraisa u'bara alma. The world and its norms were established based on the Torah. For example, murder is not innately wrong, it is only wrong because the Torah teaches us so- the animal kingdom was created in such a way that killing is a necessity and not at all immoral. My original comment was to point out to OP that it is incorrect to say that the Torah forbade murder because murdering is immoral, but rather that murdering is immoral because the Torah says so.

Let's not hijack the thread any more. If I'm wrong and you want to continue telling me so, PM'ing is fine.
This topic relates so I wouldn't consider it hijacking the thread.

 R' Nissam Goan writes that man was responsible for logical actions from the time he was placed on earth. Even before the giving of the Torah and before the 7 mitzvos bnei noach, man had a logical brain that he was expected to consult with. 

Take the case of Kayin who was held responsible for killing his brother Hevel. That was before Torah and before the 7 noahide laws. He should have known that murder is wrong.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: davidrotts63 on May 17, 2019, 07:51:21 AM
@JTZ
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 17, 2019, 11:45:00 AM
Perhaps I don't follow you fully. Are you saying that without Torah there is no innate good or bad?
That is clearly wrong because before the giving of the Torah there was the Mabul which was a punishment for wrong.
Check out R. Nissam Goan's introduction to Shas printed in any Vilna Edition where he discusses this. See also Chovos Halvavos in his introduction.
This topic relates so I wouldn't consider it hijacking the thread.

 R' Nissam Goan writes that man was responsible for logical actions from the time he was placed on earth. Even before the giving of the Torah and before the 7 mitzvos bnei noach, man had a logical brain that he was expected to consult with. 

Take the case of Kayin who was held responsible for killing his brother Hevel. That was before Torah and before the 7 noahide laws. He should have known that murder is wrong.
You appear to be confusing the giving of the Torah to klal yisroel on har sinai with the creation/existence of the Torah. Since we know histakel b'oraysa ubara alma, the fact that pre-matan Torah there was a responsibility not to kill still has to come from the Torah. Ie the mechayev may not be the Torah, but the logic still stems from the Torah.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 17, 2019, 02:03:18 PM
You appear to be confusing the giving of the Torah to klal yisroel on har sinai with the creation/existence of the Torah. Since we know histakel b'oraysa ubara alma, the fact that pre-matan Torah there was a responsibility not to kill still has to come from the Torah. Ie the mechayev may not be the Torah, but the logic still stems from the Torah.
Actually we can say both things and it still wouldn't change anything. Logic preceded Torah for man. Torah preceded the universe in the sense that Hashem first created it and then used it as a blueprint for the universe.

As you indicated, if Hashem chose a different set of laws then there might have been a different set of ethics. So be it. You can also argue that 1+1=2 isn't innately true because if G-d wanted He could have created the universe with another type of mathematics.

But since He chose to create the world the way He did, there exists certain fundamental truths that a logical mind can perceive, one of which is that if you slay your neighbor or your unborn child you are an evil person. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 17, 2019, 02:07:17 PM
I am a frum man - blessed with children. I clearly don't have a womb, so whatever I say should be taken with a grain of salt.

I've been thinking a lot about abortion and what's going in the news lately.
Me too
I'm a frum woman, mother of 2, and being pro-life seemed almost instinctual to me. But beyond my personal beliefs, debating the legality or illegality of abortion requires understanding the (euphemistically named) pro-choice position.

So the defense agains the common pro-abortion arguments are as follows:

1. "My body, my choice": This argument (which often gets intertwined with the viability argument) imagines that since the fetus is inside the mother's womb and cannot survive on its own, it's considered part of the mother. This would be the equivalent of assuming that a car parked inside a garage is part of the house. Or that a cake baking in the oven is part of the oven. The viability argument isn't too sure-footed either. A 3-month-old baby would also die if they were left alone. A toddler would also die if no one would feed them. Some adult husbands would die if they weren't fed ;) . The fact that someone requires care doesn't mean that they don't have the right to exist.
You analogy is false. That three month old baby can live if someone else were to feed it. If a 3-month old fetus was pulled out of the uterus - there is literally no way it can survive. (Yes we can fertilize embryos in a lab and implant them, but we can't move an already growing fetus to another womb).


2. "A fetus isn't a baby": Well, that's right, a fetus isn't a baby. Just the same way a baby isn't a child and a child isn't a teenager and a teenager isn't an adult. They're all at different developmental stages. But ultimately, they are all human. It's a human fetus. In fact, if you can handle it- take a look at these (http://https://www.liveaction.org/news/photos-two-babies-miscarried-7-8-weeks-share-truth-abortion/) first trimester images and tell me that this isn't a human.
What it looks like is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it isn't a viable human being.
3. The rape/incest case: As horrible and as tragic as these cases are, getting an abortion doesn't take away the rape. Furthermore, the unborn child isn't guilty of the crimes of his father. How can we justify taking someone's innocent life for a crime he didn't commit?

What about the victim of the rape? This person was attacked and violated. She will probably have physical and psychological trauma for the rest of her life. As you have b"h been obligated twice in your life so far to say birchas hagomel because you survived childbirth, I imagine you understand that pregnancy brings both financial requirements and medical risks - we're going to victimize the victim of a crime even further?  We're going to make her risk her own life for a fetus that isn't even a 'ben kayama'?

For the offensive play, pro-lifers point out the brutality of abortion.
Many people don't even know that most surgical abortions involve at the very least the dismemberment of the fetus. While rare, late term saline abortions have the baby undergo chemical burns from the inside out. If you have the stomach for it, you can google other late term abortion horrors.
You can learn about the actual details of an abortion procedure here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFZDhM5Gwhk/), it's not the same as having a cancerous, clump of tissue removed.

There is evidence (https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/338146/) that suggest that the fetus can feel pain from 16weeks and on:

On the scientific front things seem clear. A fetus is it's own human being, with it's own distinct set of DNA.
According to the CDC - which is probably the most accurate and unbiased source - 91% of all abortions happen before 13 weeks, and about 65% happen before 8 weeks. Generally speaking, the later term abortions are situations where the mother is at risk.

But things get murkier- what do we say to those babies being born into poverty, into immature and even neglectful families, those born with conditions that will make their life a struggle? What about those babies who are simply unwanted? Are they better off dead?

What if in the future we will have guaranteed pain-free abortions? What if scientists could find incontrovertible truth that babies are not conscious prior to birth? Would that change things?


Pro-life proponents would still argue "no". And that brings us to the heart of the matter: the sanctity of life. And this is the underlying answer to all of the pro-life arguments. This is why it doesn't matter what Life is, or when exactly it starts. Life is precious. Life is the most. precious. thing. Even the life of an unwanted, inconvenient baby. Even the life of a rapist's child. Even the life of a baby with Down Syndrome. Even the life of a baby who will grow up to live a poor, hard, obstacle-ridden, mostly miserable life.

At least that's how I see it.
While I can't be one to argue with your feelings. It's clear you value the life of the unborn more than the life and/or wellbeing of the mother!

 If g-d forbid a woman in pregnancy has a medical issue - and only she or the baby could survive - would you still feel that way? Would you be inclined to tell that woman to keep her pregnancy and die in order to preserve the life of the baby?

Can you imagine for a second, a 20-year-old girl, about to hit the shidduch circuit who gets raped by a non-jew on her way home from seminary? Are you advocating that she keep the baby of the criminal that impregnated her. I'm sure her shidduch prospects would be impressed that she preserved the sanctity of life by keeping this baby with the shaygitz father that impregnated her.  I am sure that will go over great when that baby becomes bar mitzvah and gets called to the torah without his true father's name. I'm sure he'll have no issue fitting in in the jewish world (because let's face it, giving up a frum baby for adoption to a non-jewish or non-frum family is probably just as bad as getting an abortion).

But this is no longer a cold-hard, logical, scientific truth. The sanctity of life is a uniquely religious idea. Because we are made in the image of G-d, that is why human life is precious. If we remove G-d from the picture- is life precious from an evolutionary standpoint? Is the 80-90 year lifespan of one (statistically prone to be) unremarkable human important among the millions of years, millions of species that precede and succeed it? Not much. Should this clump of molecules, this group of atoms matter more than this amoeba, that bacteria, this asteroid shooting, hurtling around in galaxy? And if this particular life will be difficult and often unhappy, then maybe it's even a kindness to kill it.


So for me, ultimately it's an issue of morality. And morality is inherently a religious constructs. Again, if nature is king and evolution dictates the progression of the world- why does social justice matter? In fact, in today's parlance, evolution is 'racist'! According to natural selection, it's only inevitable that 'the fittest' end up on top. That the smartest and strongest dominate and exploit the weaker isn't evil or unjust- it's only the way nature is designed!

and yet in the torah/mishna/gemara we see that:
- the punishment for damages that end a pregnancy isn't equivalent to murder.
- A child isn't considered a viable human being until 30 days out of the womb.



So now, does immoral = illegal?
Should it?


As a frum jew, from a Torah perspective, something is illegal precisely because it is immoral. But is that something we should pursue in a secular government? What about separation of church and state?
I remember frum Jews posting somewhat celebratory messages when gay marriage was legalized in 2015. The government shouldn't dictate the terms of morality, they wrote.


But where is the line drawn? And what kind of arguments can be made when God is removed from the picture?
The only reason something is illegal is because the society that we live in have deemed it as such.  I think most people in this world - regardless of religion - would think that Adultery is immoral. While adultery is grounds for divorce, and a reason to sink a political campaign, it isn't illegal.

There are those that suggest making permanent changes to your children's bodies is immoral as well, after all if we're arguing for the rights to save the unborn from their parents, why not fight for the rights of the unaware - there are movements now to not only ban ear piercings for young children, but bris mila as well. While you and I do not, some people think that circumcizing a baby is immoral as well, and it soon might in fact be legal.

Where do I draw the line? that's a good question, and a hard one - the laws that protect me as a member of a religion, should not only protect members of other religions, but also those not bound by religion.

I will leave you with a little story. Someone close to me had a situation many years ago where late into the wife's pregnancy (about 18 weeks) a medical condition that put her in serious danger was discovered. The couple consulted with several rabonim and after some discussion were given a heter to terminate the pregnancy. B"H this couple were blessed with healthy children after this (in addition to the ones they had prior).

I imagine that there are other such situations where this type of abortion is warranted, and I hope that you will agree with me. The problem is, under a lot of the new laws being introduced, these logical exemptions - at the very least Rape, Incest, or Medical Danger to the mother - are not exempt.

Which means that even in these cases, where there is a clear - Mother's life or Baby's life - situation, a doctor wouldn't be allowed to perform those abortions, at the very least, I find this reprehensible.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 17, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
I imagine that there are other such situations where this type of abortion is warranted, and I hope that you will agree with me. The problem is, under a lot of the new laws being introduced, these logical exemptions - at the very least Rape, Incest, or Medical Danger to the mother - are not exempt.

Which means that even in these cases, where there is a clear - Mother's life or Baby's life - situation, a doctor wouldn't be allowed to perform those abortions, at the very least, I find this reprehensible.
Of course in a case where the mothers life is in danger it should be allowed, please don't equate that with rape or incest. While rape is terrible, the child did nothing wrong to deserve to be murdered because it's father is a rapist.

I just did a quick google search, the first result was from buzzfeed
Quote
On Tuesday, Alabama passed the strictest abortion law in the United States, banning all abortions except in cases where the mother’s health is at “serious” risk.
Also keep in mind that rape, incest, and mother's life constitute less than 1% of all abortions.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 17, 2019, 02:30:45 PM

Which means that even in these cases, where there is a clear - Mother's life or Baby's life - situation, a doctor wouldn't be allowed to perform those abortions, at the very least, I find this reprehensible.

It seems that you misunderstood some of what she was saying. That said, which ban wouldn't allow it to save the life of the mother? The Alabama law actually does allow for it.

By the way, reading through the The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, I came across this fascinating piece:

(i) It is estimated that 6,000,000 Jewish people were murdered in German concentration camps during World War II; 3,000,000 people were executed by Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet gulags; 2,500,000 people were murdered during the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" in 1958; 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s; and approximately 1,000,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. All of these are widely acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity. By comparison, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973, more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin's gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shwarmabob on May 17, 2019, 04:00:16 PM
It seems that you misunderstood some of what she was saying. That said, which ban wouldn't allow it to save the life of the mother? The Alabama law actually does allow for it.

By the way, reading through the The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, I came across this fascinating piece:

(i) It is estimated that 6,000,000 Jewish people were murdered in German concentration camps during World War II; 3,000,000 people were executed by Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet gulags; 2,500,000 people were murdered during the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" in 1958; 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s; and approximately 1,000,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. All of these are widely acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity. By comparison, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973, more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin's gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined.
These numbers are totally incorrect. During Mao at least 50 million people died
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 17, 2019, 05:06:31 PM
Of course in a case where the mothers life is in danger it should be allowed, please don't equate that with rape or incest.

I was treating them as two different cases - both of which, IMHO, should warrant someone being allowed to have an abortion, at least we agree on one thing.

While rape is terrible, the child did nothing wrong to deserve to be murdered because it's father is a rapist.

But it's okay to abort a fetus that was the result of incest?

When someone is assaulted, they pay the physical and psychological price of the attack. Hopefully their attacker gets justice, and hopefully the assault isn't so bad that they miss too much work and/or have too long to heal.

When a woman chooses to engage in relations with a man, and she gets pregnant as a result, she understands that the pregnancy is an act of a voluntary action on her part. As much as you and I would argue what her rights are, we'd definitely agree that she got pregnant because of the risks associated with an action she chose to do.

Now we get to rape. A woman was randomly attacked and discovers she's pregnant with the child of the attacker - who literally FORCED HIMSELF ON HER!!!! She had no desire for this or any of its consequences. I'm sure she wants to move on. I'm sure she wants to start healing.

Now, she is being forced to carry this child to term - even if she gives it up for adoption:

- Every day she is reminded that this evil man's dirty act is growing inside her
- Every day she is reminded how she was violated
- Every time someone congratulates her she would cringe inside
- She now has to miss work for doctors appointments (assuming she can afford them)
- She now may have other health conditions - however temporary - arise because of this. (swollen feet, gestational diabetes, etc.)
- If she is on bedrest, she potentially loses wages and work
- She's limited in her ability to travel

So because of the 'rights' of this unborn fetus. You are forcing her to be victimized 10 times over.


I just did a quick google search, the first result was from buzzfeed Also keep in mind that rape, incest, and mother's life constitute less than 1% of all abortions.

The frequency is irrelevant, my point is that these are legitimate cases which need to have exemptions.


Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 17, 2019, 05:40:09 PM

But it's okay to abort a fetus that was the result of incest?


What does singling out incest, in a separate category from rape, add to this conversation? I'm assuming you are referring to a specific category of rape, namely rape, statutory or otherwise, by a relative. So why mention that category explicitly?

To the heart of the question, no-one is rejecting the idea that a woman carrying her rapist's baby brings unimaginable pain to the woman. Pro-life people just as much sympathy for the woman who is going through that. We just believe that two wrongs don't make a right and that abortion is wrong.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 20, 2019, 09:38:31 AM
What does singling out incest, in a separate category from rape, add to this conversation? I'm assuming you are referring to a specific category of rape, namely rape, statutory or otherwise, by a relative. So why mention that category explicitly?
Two reasons I did that - 1) the OP (Avromie7) put them together earlier is his post, and then only mentioned rape later on - I imagine he meant to include them together, but I was curious in case he didn't. 2) I imagine that many people arguing with me here are (at least in part) religiously motivated. If that's the case, I am curious if their opinion would differ in the pregnancy in question resulted from one of the relationships that one is liable for Kares in the torah (i.e. most incestuous relationships) vs one that is merely treated as a lav (i.e. a rapist raping a single woman).

To the heart of the question, no-one is rejecting the idea that a woman carrying her rapist's baby brings unimaginable pain to the woman. Pro-life people just as much sympathy for the woman who is going through that. We just believe that two wrongs don't make a right and that abortion is wrong.

While I understand the pro-life point of view, and agree with many aspects of it, this is one piece that I cannot comprehend people supporting. Just like you,  I believe that there are two wrongs here - the first is the rape itself, and the second forcing the woman to bear the fruit of this evil attack. It's bad enough that this woman needs to bear the scars of the attack itself - why do we doubly punish her by forcing the illegal fruits of the attack on her?

I would hope than many rabbonim, if presented this situation, would find an opportunity to provide such a victim with a heter to have an abortion.

I was very tempted to go down the route of asking all of you who support rape victims being forced to bear their rapists babies to imagine it was your wife/sister/daughter - but I will go one step further - talk to a rape victim. I'm sure if you did, you'd see it from a different perspective.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 10:19:53 AM

While I understand the pro-life point of view, and agree with many aspects of it, this is one piece that I cannot comprehend people supporting. Just like you,  I believe that there are two wrongs here - the first is the rape itself, and the second forcing the woman to bear the fruit of this evil attack. It's bad enough that this woman needs to bear the scars of the attack itself - why do we doubly punish her by forcing the illegal fruits of the attack on her?
It boggles my mind that someone would advocate for abortion the way you do. And some of your other arguments up-thread are even more ludicrous. For example:

- She now has to miss work for doctors appointments (assuming she can afford them)
- If she is on bedrest, she potentially loses wages and work
- She's limited in her ability to travel

Are you serious? What in the world does this have to do with slaying a baby? And why not extend your arguments to their logical conclusion? Say the mother gives birth. According to your twisted logic, we should kill that baby. Because, like you keep on saying, we must factor in the pain this child will bring the mother.

But we wouldn't murder the infant because the mother's horrific experience has nothing to do with the life of the child. Imaging that it was your relative is totally irrelevant.

You keep on saying we need to focus on the mother's experience. Actually it is exactly the other way around. While we recognize that she underwent a horrific, life-altering experience, we need to ignore that right now so that we don't destroy in innocent life.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 20, 2019, 10:42:36 AM

Just like you,  I believe that there are two wrongs here - the first is the rape itself, and the second forcing the woman to bear the fruit of this evil attack. It's bad enough that this woman needs to bear the scars of the attack itself - why do we doubly punish her by forcing the illegal fruits of the attack on her?

I would hope than many rabbonim, if presented this situation, would find an opportunity to provide such a victim with a heter to have an abortion.

It is not us forcing this baby on her, its the rapist (and G-d). I don't think you "fix" a horrible situation by doing another horrible thing to an innocent baby.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 20, 2019, 12:40:40 PM
Regardless I don't like the idea of analysing laws based on logic. Laws never were logic it's always feelings. If someone feels that it's wrong it doesn't have to make sense and it doesn't have to be based on a religious idea. Same goes for the other side.
This makes absolutely no sense at all.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 20, 2019, 12:55:48 PM
It boggles my mind that someone would advocate for abortion the way you do. And some of your other arguments up-thread are even more ludicrous. For example:

- She now has to miss work for doctors appointments (assuming she can afford them)
- If she is on bedrest, she potentially loses wages and work
- She's limited in her ability to travel

Are you serious? What in the world does this have to do with slaying a baby?
I am very serious. A woman gets raped, a few weeks later she realizes that she is pregnant, she wants to have an abortion. The government says she can't. Let's say she's an hourly worker at Walmart - every missed shift, is missed $$$ for her. Maybe she is working hourly and doesn't have healthcare - who's paying for her doctor visits? Maternity clothes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that this law allows you to sue the rapist for that (even if we assume he can pay it). So she had the consequence of being a random victim of a moron who couldn't control his urges, and now shes forced to continually pay? Seriously? You are one cruel and unusual person.

And why not extend your arguments to their logical conclusion? Say the mother gives birth. According to your twisted logic, we should kill that baby. Because, like you keep on saying, we must factor in the pain this child will bring the mother.
If she opts to keep the baby until birth - one of two things would happen - a) She's decided that despite all of the trauma, she wants to keep the child b) She decides that she doesn't believe in abortion, but gives the child up. Either way, if she carries the baby to term - that was her choice. We're not talking about killing a baby. We're talking about killing a fetus that isn't viable outside the womb, because the pregnancy is the result of a crime.


But we wouldn't murder the infant because the mother's horrific experience has nothing to do with the life of the child.
It has everything to do with the life of the fetus (that isn't yet a child). The child is the fruit of the woman's horrific experience, and a constant reminder of it.

Imaging that it was your relative is totally irrelevant.
It is only relevant to help put it into perspective. G-d forbid it was your mother, sister, wife, or daughter - and she decided to have an abortion - would you ostracize her? Would you throw her out of your house? Would you excommunicate her? Would you condemn her to a life of having to explain why her one child looks nothing like her or her husband?

You keep on saying we need to focus on the mother's experience. Actually it is exactly the other way around. While we recognize that she underwent a horrific, life-altering experience, we need to ignore that right now so that we don't destroy in innocent life.
So by this logic, if a doctor tells a pregnant woman that she her pregnancy needs to be terminate because there is a chance that she might die, you'd would ignore her horrific situation and not destroy innocent life, even if it means she might die?




Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 20, 2019, 01:06:42 PM
It is not us forcing this baby on her, its the rapist (and G-d). I don't think you "fix" a horrible situation by doing another horrible thing to an innocent baby.


Yes - hashem wants her to be raped. I'm sure she deserves it. In as much as the rapist forced the baby on her, he had no right to do so, and she didn't choose to have "relations" with him. We're now putting her in a situation where she will incur (as I have laid out) monetary loss, physical and emotional pain, and potentially endanger her life - none of which she wants to do.

By not allowing her to have an exemption for Rape, it is, in fact "us" who are forcing this baby on her - beyond her attackers intentions.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 20, 2019, 02:09:21 PM
This makes absolutely no sense at all.
In which scenario?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 03:51:42 PM

So by this logic, if a doctor tells a pregnant woman that she her pregnancy needs to be terminate because there is a chance that she might die, you'd would ignore her horrific situation and not destroy innocent life, even if it means she might die?


Let's get this out of the way. When the mother's life is at risk, it isn't comparable. Halacha says that the child is viewed as a rodef.

You should be commended for your compassionate feelings toward the woman that underwent the harrowing experience. The wickedness of the pervert, her doctor visits, maternity clothes, the trauma. There's no doubt that the perp will be greatly punished in Gehennom and probably this world as well. But the Halacha revolves around the baby, not the mother. You mentioned above that you are a frum man with children. I doubt you would be a good judge because you are very partial. You need to take a step back.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 03:55:42 PM
In which scenario?

Pretty much every scenario.

Where did you get the idea that laws are about feelings and not logic? It's very much the polar opposite. Laws are typically logical constructs.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 20, 2019, 04:02:46 PM
Pretty much every scenario.

Where did you get the idea that laws are about feelings and not logic? It's very much the polar opposite. Laws are typically logical constructs.
Let's take stealing for example. Stealing won't ruin the world if the person doesn't care that someone stole. So why should  the stealer have to not steal more than the other person has to work on accepting his situation at all times?

(Basically it's the concept of ownership that I'm asking on)

The answer is because you FEEL that there's a concept of ownership that entitles you to something that no one else has a right to.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 20, 2019, 04:33:23 PM

Yes - hashem wants her to be raped. I'm sure she deserves it.

That is a despicable misstatment of my views and I would have expected better from you.

What if boils down to is that you believe
We're not talking about killing a baby. We're talking about killing a fetus that isn't viable outside the womb,

And therefore it is ok to kill him or her if the inconvenience or suffering of the mother is enough, and Torah says that it is murder (although on a somewhat lesser level) and therefore the only reason it can be allowed is to save a life.

The difference between your view and that of Planned Parenthood's is just a question of degree.

And to your suggestion that I speak to a rape survivor, I recommend that you speak to an abortion survivor or someone who was concieved by rape.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 20, 2019, 04:37:08 PM
Let's take stealing for example. Stealing won't ruin the world if the person doesn't care that someone stole. So why should  the stealer have to not steal more than the other person has to work on accepting his situation at all times?

(Basically it's the concept of ownership that I'm asking on)

The answer is because you FEEL that there's a concept of ownership that entitles you to something that no one else has a right to.
-1 feeling would be I want it so I take it, logic dictates that I own something and if you take it you are a thief.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ADG on May 20, 2019, 04:47:50 PM
I hear the arguments and I cannot make up my mind because each side is so extreme.

On a side note I am dumbfounded how this has become such a important topic in american politics and culture. Americans are usually surrounded by lowest cultural objectives and here we are discussing an extremely difficult and nuanced debate on morality/ethics/governance.

My personal position is (still formulating but) I do believe in the sanctity of life but its probably not the government's place to protect that because it is a religious matter.  If someone made a horrible mistake, I think they should be able to get abortion early on- not late in the game. (pretty much on the side of roe I guess)

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 04:51:48 PM
Let's take stealing for example. Stealing won't ruin the world if the person doesn't care that someone stole. So why should  the stealer have to not steal more than the other person has to work on accepting his situation at all times?

(Basically it's the concept of ownership that I'm asking on)

The answer is because you FEEL that there's a concept of ownership that entitles you to something that no one else has a right to.

Interesting point.
I think that what you are discussing isn't law. It's a philosophical discussion on the nature of things. In this case, the concept of ownership.
Law dictates that you must give back what you stole, which is logical (once you accept the concept of ownership).

However, even regarding the concept of ownership itself, it may not be so clear cut. Who says that "ownership" is predicated on a feeling of entitlement? Perhaps the feeling of entitlement is a result of the concept of ownership...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 20, 2019, 04:52:39 PM
But the Halacha revolves around the baby, not the mother.
I take very strong exception to this line. How can you not take the mother into account?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 05:06:22 PM
I hear the arguments and I cannot make up my mind because each side is so extreme.

My personal position is (still formulating but) I do believe in the sanctity of life but its probably not the government's place to protect that because it is a religious matter.
Religious matter? Would you argue that the government should look away in a case where a man shoots his neighbor because it is a religious matter? After all, the sin of murder is based on the concept that man is created in G-d's image. Not even a liberal would argue that. In fact, one of the 7 Laws of Noah is to establish court systems, so they better not look away.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 05:16:21 PM
I take very strong exception to this line. How can you not take the mother into account?

See upthread. If you still have trouble differentiating I can't help you.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 20, 2019, 05:27:50 PM
I take very strong exception to this line. How can you not take the mother into account?

I think his point was that because we are dealing with a competition between the mother's pain vs. the baby's life, the life is our primary focus
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 20, 2019, 05:38:29 PM
I think you need to read up on rape victims and how carrying a fetus to term and delivering it can increase the trauma.

You say you are pro life because of the Torah, but the Torah is not "pro life" in the American sense of the word.

I think society and government should be studying why women end up in positions wanting abortions and work upstream to reduce unwanted pregnancies. You can't combine abstinence only education with no birth control and expect teenagers to not end up pregnant...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 20, 2019, 05:51:14 PM
I think you need to read up on rape victims and how carrying a fetus to term and delivering it can increase the trauma.

If you think I am disputing that rape causes trama (and that that trama is increased when a pregnancy results) you haven't read a word I wrote.

The point I made repeatedly is that trama, or pain is not a reason to take a life. Obviously if that trama is a risk to the mother's life (as defined by Torah and assessed by a competent posek) then we return to the discussion of rodef.


You say you are pro life because of the Torah, but the Torah is not "pro life" in the American sense of the word.


Yes it is (with exceptions and nuance).

You can't combine abstinence only education with no birth control and expect teenagers to not end up pregnant...

Of course you can. What is the teen pregnancy rate in Williamsburg, Boro Park or Lakewood?

What you can do is bombard kids with sex in culture 24/7 and then expect a sex-ed class with the gym teacher to counter what they see every day on TV.

The bigger problem with this argument is that it pretends that teen/pre-marital sex is fine as long as it doesn't end in pregnancy. That idea certainly doesn't come from Torah...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 20, 2019, 05:52:14 PM
See upthread. If you still have trouble differentiating I can't help you.
You mean this?
While we recognize that she underwent a horrific, life-altering experience, we need to ignore that right now so that we don't destroy in innocent life.
Any moreh hora'a who can ignore that probably shouldn't be paskening.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 20, 2019, 06:09:49 PM
If you think I am disputing that rape causes trama (and that that trama is increased when a pregnancy results) you haven't read a word I wrote.

The point I made repeatedly is that trama, or pain is not a reason to take a life. Obviously if that trama is a risk to the mother's life (as defined by Torah and assessed by a competent posek) then we return to the discussion of rodef.

Yes it is (with exceptions and nuance).

Of course you can. What is the teen pregnancy rate in Williamsburg, Boro Park or Lakewood?

What you can do is bombard kids with sex in culture 24/7 and then expect a sex-ed class with the gym teacher to counter what they see every day on TV.

The bigger problem with this argument is that it pretends that teen/pre-marital sex is fine as long as it doesn't end in pregnancy. That idea certainly doesn't come from Torah...


Many frum women have been given heterim to abort including for reasons relating to trauma and rape.

The Torah does not agree with the American pro-life version.  Unless you think every Rabbi who gives a heterosexual is wrong.  The Torah supports abortion based on circumstance and the pro-life lobby does not really. 

As to abstinence only education,  I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not.  Williamsburg doesn't rely on just abstinence only education.  They sequester boys and girls to completely avoid each other.  They are not together at school. It is also ludicrous to expect that of society at large.  And kids from those communities do get pregnant and have abortions but they are largely not discussed (and at a rate lower than in general society).

Quite honestly,  I think that the recent swing to the pro-life side of abortion in the frum community just means that catholic values have infiltrated the Jewish community. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 06:21:16 PM
You mean this?Any moreh hora'a who can ignore that probably shouldn't be paskening.

My point was, in zh cohen's words, trama, or pain is not a reason to take a life.
And as I believe is inherent in your words, in all cases an extremely competent moreh hora'a should be involved
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 20, 2019, 07:01:28 PM
The Torah does not agree with the American pro-life version.  Unless you think every Rabbi who gives a heterosexual is wrong.  The Torah supports abortion based on circumstance and the pro-life lobby does not really. 


Quite honestly,  I think that the recent swing to the pro-life side of abortion in the frum community just means that catholic values have infiltrated the Jewish community.
Exactly. Both of these points are what I was trying to say in the other thread but people here seem unable to grasp either of these concepts.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yitzgar on May 20, 2019, 07:56:20 PM


[quote author=saw50st8 link=topic=103824.msg2094072#msg2094072 date=1558390189).

Quite honestly,  I think that the recent swing to the pro-life side of abortion in the frum community just means that catholic values have infiltrated the Jewish community.
[/quote]

Possibly. But I would think that the Torah view is closer to pro life than the pro choice side espoused by today's liberal politicians and media
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 20, 2019, 08:49:48 PM
As to abstinence only education,  I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not.  Williamsburg doesn't rely on just abstinence only education.  They sequester boys and girls to completely avoid each other.  They are not together at school.
I know this is off topic. This is one of my biggest ( rage inducing) pet peeves and related to this

Me and the word teenager don't get along very well.

Are you saying that it's because they separate boys and girls and not due to the beliefs of those young adults?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 20, 2019, 09:00:51 PM
The Torah does not agree with the American pro-life version.

Well, lets compare. Checking Wikipedia on Anti-abortion movement it reads: Anti-abortion movements, also referred to as pro-life movements, are involved in the abortion debate advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality. Checking out R' Moshe's tshuvah, it reads:

לברר שהריגת עובר אסורה באסור רציחה בין בעכו“ם
בין בישראל... ולכן לדינא... איכא איסור רציחה מלא
תרצח גם על עובר ורק שפטור ההורגו ממיתה

So it seems pretty compatible.

Quite honestly,  I think that the recent swing to the pro-life side of abortion in the frum community just means that catholic values have infiltrated the Jewish community.

What recent swing are you talking about? Frum people always abominated the pro-choice movement. Actually what we are seeing, based on what happened in Alabama, is the opposite.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 20, 2019, 09:13:31 PM
-1 feeling would be I want it so I take it, logic dictates that I own something and if you take it you are a thief.
I'm not following. Are you saying my question is wrong or my answer?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: AussieMan on May 20, 2019, 09:16:42 PM

The Torah does not agree with the American pro-life version. 

Quite honestly,  I think that the recent swing to the pro-life side of abortion in the frum community just means that catholic values have infiltrated the Jewish community.

Pro-life may not be 100% a Torah value, but pro-choice is clearly much further away. The Torah clearly doesn't give us a "choice" regarding our body.

We shouldn't push Torah values on American society, but we can fight the extreme liberals. The problem in politics is that you can't be anti-choice unless you subscribe to pro-life

As a side, a couple of questions related to the topic
Do pro-choice give the dad the choice to abort? or are they only pro women's choice?
What's so bad to say that abortion is murder which we allow for convenience, just like we don't get involved in the murder of animals out of convenience.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 21, 2019, 12:25:47 AM

What's so bad to say that abortion is murder which we allow for convenience, just like we don't get involved in the murder of animals out of convenience.

I think the word you are looking for is "killing" not murder. (Although it depends on your definition of "lawful")
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 21, 2019, 02:26:42 AM
Well, lets compare. Checking Wikipedia on Anti-abortion movement it reads: Anti-abortion movements, also referred to as pro-life movements, are involved in the abortion debate advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality. Checking out R' Moshe's tshuvah, it reads:

לברר שהריגת עובר אסורה באסור רציחה בין בעכו“ם
בין בישראל... ולכן לדינא... איכא איסור רציחה מלא
תרצח גם על עובר ורק שפטור ההורגו ממיתה

So it seems pretty compatible.

What recent swing are you talking about? Frum people always abominated the pro-choice movement. Actually what we are seeing, based on what happened in Alabama, is the opposite.



Torah is against the free choice of pro-choice movement, but Torah does allow abortions. You would be surprised at how many frum teenagers and women have had abortions because it is not discussed at all within the community. They range from teenage pregnancies to rape to fetuses incompatible with life. If you want a frum woman to be able to follow the psak of her Rabbi if she needs an abortion, you cannot be anti-abortion. They won't be available.

As to the Catholic infiltration - it is only in the last ten years or so that I've heard frum people being so anti-abortion. In years past, everyone I knew was pragmatic and believed abortions should be available for when necessary. I think with the same swing to the right of religion in general, Catholic puritanism has infiltrated in a much more mainstream way.

Pro-life may not be 100% a Torah value, but pro-choice is clearly much further away. The Torah clearly doesn't give us a "choice" regarding our body.

We shouldn't push Torah values on American society, but we can fight the extreme liberals. The problem in politics is that you can't be anti-choice unless you subscribe to pro-life

As a side, a couple of questions related to the topic
Do pro-choice give the dad the choice to abort? or are they only pro women's choice?
What's so bad to say that abortion is murder which we allow for convenience, just like we don't get involved in the murder of animals out of convenience.

I agree that we shouldn't push Torah values on the American public. I also believe that until fetus is viable, abortion is a much murkier area than anyone likes to talk about. Until a fetus is viable outside the womb, it is essentially a parasite. That makes it a health issue (mental health included) for the women carrying the baby. Unless you think a woman should be able to order a man's vasectomy, this falls squarely into a women's rights issue. The father has rights once the baby is born.

We definitely kill animals out of convenience and desire. Are you a vegan?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 21, 2019, 07:15:09 AM
Torah is against the free choice of pro-choice movement, but Torah does allow abortions. You would be surprised at how many frum teenagers and women have had abortions because it is not discussed at all within the community. They range from teenage pregnancies to rape to fetuses incompatible with life. If you want a frum woman to be able to follow the psak of her Rabbi if she needs an abortion, you cannot be anti-abortion. They won't be available.

As to the Catholic infiltration - it is only in the last ten years or so that I've heard frum people being so anti-abortion. In years past, everyone I knew was pragmatic and believed abortions should be available for when necessary. I think with the same swing to the right of religion in general, Catholic puritanism has infiltrated in a much more mainstream way.

I agree that we shouldn't push Torah values on the American public. I also believe that until fetus is viable, abortion is a much murkier area than anyone likes to talk about. Until a fetus is viable outside the womb, it is essentially a parasite. That makes it a health issue (mental health included) for the women carrying the baby. Unless you think a woman should be able to order a man's vasectomy, this falls squarely into a women's rights issue. The father has rights once the baby is born.

We definitely kill animals out of convenience and desire. Are you a vegan?

Do you have any torah source for the distinction between before viability and after?

It's really interesting to see that those who are blaming outside influences for the Jewish view are clearly basing their views on a secular culture.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: AussieMan on May 21, 2019, 07:57:12 AM
I think I agree with everything you wrote.

Even if pro choice is further away from Jewish value than pro life, pro choice wil give us more flexibility regarding living life the way Torah mandates, as the government is less involved.

However from a moral perspective, pro choice to me is evil.
I think the government should permit it since there is no magical way to determine when human life begins. I  just think the dad should also have a choice to kill the fetus (in theory, if he was able to do so without hurting the mother).

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ADG on May 21, 2019, 09:25:29 AM
Religious matter? Would you argue that the government should look away in a case where a man shoots his neighbor because it is a religious matter? After all, the sin of murder is based on the concept that man is created in G-d's image. Not even a liberal would argue that. In fact, one of the 7 Laws of Noah is to establish court systems, so they better not look away.

The argument of the sanctity of life is very different them murdering your neighbor, as is abortion.

Even the Torah does not equate the two. (Only one has a din of redef until the baby is born)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 21, 2019, 09:33:19 AM
My personal position is (still formulating but) I do believe in the sanctity of life but its probably not the government's place to protect that because it is a religious matter.  If someone made a horrible mistake, I think they should be able to get abortion early on- not late in the game. (pretty much on the side of roe I guess)

According to the CDC (the stats are the most recent from 2015) 91% of abortions happen before the 12th week, and 67% before the 8th week (they don't break it down further than that).

There is also no rationale breakdown on their site - i.e. why did this woman have an abortion. I would imagine that most of the later term abortions are because of medical reasons, but I can't offer any proof to back it up.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: dealfinder11 on May 21, 2019, 09:34:05 AM
A very interesting thread . Thanx to all who have expressed and articulated their opinions.

I have a few observations/questions:

1.

Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying: " A young conservative has no heart, an old liberal has no brain".
 
The fact that the liberal position on abortion has been established as "pro choice" i find to be interesting. If emotion is what guides your position, often at the expense of reason, then why would the entire party gravitate to the emotional anguish of a person who wishes to preform an abortion - for whatever reason - as opposed to the extreme unfairness and horror dealt to the unborn?

Likewise, If free choice is the rallying cry for most conservatives, and the government should not be dictating decisions for the citizens of this country, then why are conservatives almost unanimously "pro life"?

I'm inclined do believe the reason behind this is more to do with the religious divide between the parties but that seems to be only a small part.

2. I think the advent of technology has significantly affected, and will continue to effect, the debate. Not only from a social media standpoint, but also from the advance of photographic ability. The ultrasound picture quality that exists today is exponentially more vivid and graphic than those from even a couple years ago. I think that it is possible that some of the emotionally charged positions may be dynamic for this reason.




 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 09:45:35 AM
To summarize my thoughts from the other thread:

Facts that aren't really up to debate:
1. Halacha aligns much more closely to the pro-life position than the pro-choice position. There is no major posek who allows abortions for any reason at any time.
2. There are more exceptions brought down by major poskim such as Rav Emden and the Tzeitz Eliezer than certain pro-life laws would automatically allow for.
3. The Agudah has encouraged religious exceptions to restrictive abortion laws in the past - so they have clearly determined laws to be too restrictive in the past as written.

Things that are debated:
1. Whether the government should or should not be in the business of attempting to regulate such a debated choice. Is this objective morality such as murder, or is it something that should be left up to people to discuss with their rabbi, priest, imam, ethicist, family, etc?
2. Whether frum Jews should want a pro-life position pushed, even if it means that religious Christian principles become the backbone of US law.
3. Whether having a law that is in line with Halacha in 99% of cases is good, even if it will create burdens for the 1% of cases where Halacha either mandates or allows for abortions (in consult with poskim).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 21, 2019, 10:05:27 AM

Let's get this out of the way. When the mother's life is at risk, it isn't comparable. Halacha says that the child is viewed as a rodef.
Let me ask you this - why does a woman bench gomel after childbirth? Being pregnant is a sakanah. While we can easily make the argument that it's not the same sakanah it once was, clearly our poskim agree that it still remains a sakana, otherwise wouldn't they have stopped women from needing gomel? While a couple who gets pregnant is willingly taking on the sakana to be mikayim pru v'rivu, the rape or incest victim is not. That alone should be enough for Rodeph.

You should be commended for your compassionate feelings toward the woman that underwent the harrowing experience. The wickedness of the pervert, her doctor visits, maternity clothes, the trauma. There's no doubt that the perp will be greatly punished in Gehennom and probably this world as well. But the Halacha revolves around the baby, not the mother.

With my limited couple of years of Beis Medrash, I don't think I am knowledgeable to take anyone on, and it must be that my understanding of the torah is completely wrong to the point of apikorsis. I mean, I must completely misunderstand that killing a nefel is patur avel ussur, and that using it as the basis to end a life-threatening situation for a rape victim is unacceptable. I must also misunderstand how killing a baby in the womb by attacking the mother doesn't result in a death penalty, but rather a monetary penalty instead - how is that? I must be completely mistaken, based on the approach you are taking, every abortion doctor should be chayav misah?!?

So forgive me if I don't think that halacha favors the living over the not yet alive or those not yet in chezkas kayama. Even if I agree with your assessment that halacha favors the baby over the mother, your statement above suggests that there is at least one situation where the mother comes first - so how about we say we're arguing over the bar for what makes a baby a rodeph (I have no problem agreeing that my bar is lower).

You mentioned above that you are a frum man with children. I doubt you would be a good judge because you are very partial. You need to take a step back.
This makes no sense? Are you saying that I can't be partial because I have children? Not a day goes by where I don't realize how fortunate and blessed I am. I have plenty of friends who've had a harder path to parenthood, and some are still waiting for a yeshua. I have friends who were blessed that hashem gave doctors the science to help them out, and others who've gone the adoption route.

... and some of my friends with adopted children, worry about how they will ultimately marry off their children. It's amazing that we in Jewish society doubly exclude those who can't have children - they feel excluded from communal life because they weren't blessed with children, and when they adopt, they live with the constant anxiety of having their child blend in - even if it's not obvious to see that the child is adopted.

So now, we have a woman, who is the victim of a crime. Just like the person who's car is broken into, or who's purse is stolen - she isn't to blame. And while we may suggest that any pregnancy is a blessing - this one is clearly not.

So what step back do I need to take? I agree that abortion isn't the answer, but argue that we need to allow it in at least 2 specific cases - life of the mother, and rape.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 21, 2019, 10:07:11 AM
To summarize my thoughts from the other thread:
Facts that aren't really up to debate:
1. Halacha aligns much more closely to the pro-life position than the pro-choice position. There is no major posek who allows abortions for any reason at any time.
I assume you mean - without any specific reason - i.e. there is no posek who has given blanket approval for abortion period.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 10:11:55 AM
I assume you mean - without any specific reason - i.e. there is no posek who has given blanket approval for abortion period.

Yes - hence the "any time any reason" comment. Pro-choice would say abortion for any reason is allowed (I realize there are many in the pro-choice camp who would object after viability, but the reason for the choice at the beginning of a pregnancy is generally not relevant).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ADG on May 21, 2019, 10:22:13 AM

3. Whether having a law that is in line with Halacha in 99% of cases is good, even if it will create burdens for the 1% of cases where Halacha either mandates or allows for abortions (in consult with poskim).

I think this hits the nail on the head. The pro-life would restrict these 1% cases. Without laws restricting abortions you are not forced to have one. But with them you wouldn't be able to have one if you need one. Even if the number is only 1% those cases would be imposed while the others wouldnt.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 11:36:08 AM
Let me ask you this - why does a woman bench gomel after childbirth? Being pregnant is a sakanah. While we can easily make the argument that it's not the same sakanah it once was, clearly our poskim agree that it still remains a sakana, otherwise wouldn't they have stopped women from needing gomel? While a couple who gets pregnant is willingly taking on the sakana to be mikayim pru v'rivu, the rape or incest victim is not. That alone should be enough for Rodeph.
Every time you scare me with your logic, I think it can’t get worse, but it does. What does any of this have to do with rodeph? Rodeph is a case where we know that the mother’s life is in danger. A pregnancy that does not endanger the mother’s life has an inherent risk, but not similar to rodeph at all.

Think of it like driving a vehicle. Is there an inherent risk every time you take the wheel? Yes. Does that mean that every time you take the wheel someone is trying to crash into you? No.


So what step back do I need to take? I agree that abortion isn't the answer, but argue that we need to allow it in at least 2 specific cases - life of the mother, and rape.
OK so then we should be on board in the vast majority of cases - not like you posit above that most abortions are due to medical complexities.

I would imagine that most of the over 50 million babies that have been slain in the U.S. since 1973 do not have any justification whatsoever. The fact that you seem to have been viewing the cruelty of abortion through the lens of an exception case in your opinion, does not have any bearing on the rule because exceptions don’t prove rules.

Imagine what will happen when despicable people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg ym”sh – the Supreme Court’s most ardent protector of abortion rights - finally kicks the bucket. I imagine millions of unborn children who were denied the right to breathe because of people like Ginsburg clawing into her cursed soul and and ripping it apart for eternity, again and again and again...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 11:40:31 AM
Imagine what will happen when despicable people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg ym”sh – the Supreme Court’s most ardent protector of abortion rights - finally kicks the bucket. I imagine millions of unborn children who were denied the right to breathe because of people like Ginsburg clawing into her cursed soul and and ripping it apart for eternity, again and again and again...

That escalated quickly. Believing the government doesn't have the right to regulate abortion =/= killing babies. Individual women made those choices. US government policies have enabled all sorts of atrocities around the world throughout history - that doesn't make a single judge or politician responsible.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 11:44:52 AM
Torah is against the free choice of pro-choice movement, but Torah does allow abortions.
 
Exceptions don't prove rules.

The fact that you know of a halachic case dictates that we should sit back and ignore the fact that more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973?
Don't you think we should try to stop this holocaust? No, let's ignore it because Torah allows it in an uncommon case such as when the mother's life is in danger...makes perfect sense....
As to the Catholic infiltration - it is only in the last ten years or so that I've heard frum people being so anti-abortion. In years past, everyone I knew was pragmatic and believed abortions should be available for when necessary. I think with the same swing to the right of religion in general, Catholic puritanism has infiltrated in a much more mainstream way.
I guess based on what you've heard, but that isn't the truth at all. The frum world has always abhorred it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 11:45:58 AM
Lets assume for a moment that private citizens' use of guns have cost more lives than they have saved.

Would you say that a judge who has defended an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that makes it easy to get a gun is culpable for the murders that took place with those guns?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 11:52:03 AM
That escalated quickly. Believing the government doesn't have the right to regulate abortion =/= killing babies. Individual women made those choices. US government policies have enabled all sorts of atrocities around the world throughout history - that doesn't make a single judge or politician responsible.
um, it actually does. Individual women made those choices only because government policies have been enacted, therefore judges and politicians are hugely responsible. Basic logic my friend.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 11:55:22 AM
um, it actually does. Individual women made those choices only because government policies have been enacted, therefore judges and politicians are hugely responsible. Basic logic my friend.

So I guess you would say nobody does drugs since there are laws against it? You deny a basic truth that if people want an abortion, they are going to get one anyway in many cases. So all the laws do is make them more dangerous.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: sguitarist18 on May 21, 2019, 12:02:30 PM
Let me ask you this - why does a woman bench gomel after childbirth? Being pregnant is a sakanah. While we can easily make the argument that it's not the same sakanah it once was, clearly our poskim agree that it still remains a sakana, otherwise wouldn't they have stopped women from needing gomel? While a couple who gets pregnant is willingly taking on the sakana to be mikayim pru v'rivu, the rape or incest victim is not. That alone should be enough for Rodeph.

If I put someone on an airplane, does that make me a rodef?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 12:13:09 PM
Lets assume for a moment that private citizens' use of guns have cost more lives than they have saved.

Would you say that a judge who has defended an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that makes it easy to get a gun is culpable for the murders that took place with those guns?
You keep on making blanket statements, comparisons and assumptions that are illogical.

Maybe someone against guns will argue that they cost more lives than saved. But pro-gun people argue that it promotes safety. (I would say that Israel is a good argument for that.) Now abortion is completely incomparable. Pro abortion people are not denying that they are ending lives. They say that they have the right to do it. And that "right" is strictly a result of the law of the land, which has resulted in over 50 million murders. So, no, one can not be compared to the next.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 12:24:53 PM
So I guess you would say nobody does drugs since there are laws against it?
Again with the lack of sense.

You are arguing that since people do drugs which is against the law, therefore even if heroin was legal people would do it just as much. Totally false. If Heroin was legal it would be much more common. 

You deny a basic truth that if people want an abortion, they are going to get one anyway in many cases.
nonsensical once again
Yes, I deny your "basic truth" because it is a basic falsity. If abortion was illegal it would be far less common, even if some people will do it anyway. 



Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 12:33:29 PM
Again with the lack of sense.

You are arguing that since people do drugs which is against the law, therefore even if heroin was legal people would do it just as much. Totally false. If Heroin was legal it would be much more common. 
nonsensical once again
Yes, I deny your "basic truth" because it is a basic falsity. If abortion was illegal it would be far less common, even if some people will do it anyway.
If the government is serious about ending abortion, they will need to pony up a lot of money to actually fund delivery, foster placement, food etc. Because the majority of people who seek elective abortions and would also not be able to go overseas to get one are poorer women who don't have the money to pay for a child (which is k e of the main reasons surveys show that they seek one).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
If the government is serious about ending abortion, they will need to pony up a lot of money to actually fund delivery, foster placement, food etc. Because the majority of people who seek elective abortions and would also not be able to go overseas to get one are poorer women who don't have the money to pay for a child (which is k e of the main reasons surveys show that they seek one).
Therefore?

I have no idea if your stats are true at all, but even if they are....
I can't believe i'm actually arguing that a lack of funds is not a valid reason to slay an unborn child.... Mind blowing.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 12:49:44 PM
Therefore?

I have no idea if your stats are true at all, but even if they are....
I can't believe i'm actually arguing that a lack of funds is not a valid reason to slay an unborn child.... Mind blowing.
Again, I'm not debating whether it is justified or not. I'm saying if the government is shaping policy, they have to be prepared to deal with it. Since you are advocating a specific government policy, you would need to be able to back it up into something workable.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 12:52:43 PM
Therefore?

 Mind blowing.
+100
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 12:55:18 PM
Again, I'm not debating whether it is justified or not. I'm saying if the government is shaping policy, they have to be prepared to deal with it. Since you are advocating a specific government policy, you would need to be able to back it up into something workable.
If a state does the right thing and prohibits slaying babies it should also be ready to place those babies somewhere where they aren't abused, such as away from a cruel mother that would have preferred the baby dead. Agreed.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 21, 2019, 02:44:22 PM
Do you have any torah source for the distinction between before viability and after?

It's really interesting to see that those who are blaming outside influences for the Jewish view are clearly basing their views on a secular culture.

No, but a baby is not considered an actual baby until it takes its first breath. But I think we can all agree that killing a healthy baby in utero a moment before it is born would be abhorrent. Viability changes with every generation.

According to the CDC (the stats are the most recent from 2015) 91% of abortions happen before the 12th week, and 67% before the 8th week (they don't break it down further than that).

There is also no rationale breakdown on their site - i.e. why did this woman have an abortion. I would imagine that most of the later term abortions are because of medical reasons, but I can't offer any proof to back it up.

Women who have late term abortions do so for medical reasons. They are usually very much wanted and longed for babies who end up being incompatible with life in some way.

Exceptions don't prove rules.

The fact that you know of a halachic case dictates that we should sit back and ignore the fact that more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973?
Don't you think we should try to stop this holocaust? No, let's ignore it because Torah allows it in an uncommon case such as when the mother's life is in danger...makes perfect sense....I guess based on what you've heard, but that isn't the truth at all. The frum world has always abhorred it.

I think we need to look upstream at what risk factors are for causing unwanted pregnancies and stop that. It's like changing your diet BEFORE you have a heart attack rather than requiring a bypass.

I grew up in the frum community and over my lifetime there has been a huge shift to the right. Abortion has definitely been a part of that. People used to view being pro-choice as sort of a necessary evil to make sure they were available. Now I find scores of people who are completely against it (likely until their good bais yaakov girl comes home pregnant and gets a heter to abort instead of ruining the rest of her life).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 02:46:14 PM
No, but a baby is not considered an actual baby until it takes its first breath. But I think we can all agree that killing a healthy baby in utero a moment before it is born would be abhorrent. Viability changes with every generation.

Women who have late term abortions do so for medical reasons. They are usually very much wanted and longed for babies who end up being incompatible with life in some way.

I think we need to look upstream at what risk factors are for causing unwanted pregnancies and stop that. It's like changing your diet BEFORE you have a heart attack rather than requiring a bypass.

I grew up in the frum community and over my lifetime there has been a huge shift to the right. Abortion has definitely been a part of that. People used to view being pro-choice as sort of a necessary evil to make sure they were available. Now I find scores of people who are completely against it (likely until their good bais yaakov girl comes home pregnant and gets a heter to abort instead of ruining the rest of her life).
People are in denial if they think that elective abortion for serious but not life threatening situations is completely absent from the community with the support of rabbonim. No, I don't have stats to back that up, but I've heard stories about people in this parsha knowing who to ask, similar to birth control.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 21, 2019, 02:59:01 PM
Women who have late term abortions do so for medical reasons. They are usually very much wanted and longed for babies who end up being incompatible with life in some way.
This is largely false as can be seen here from Florida where they track all abortions http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml (http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml) under by gestation reason
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 21, 2019, 03:18:36 PM
Every time you scare me with your logic, I think it can’t get worse, but it does. What does any of this have to do with rodeph? Rodeph is a case where we know that the mother’s life is in danger. A pregnancy that does not endanger the mother’s life has an inherent risk, but not similar to rodeph at all.

Think of it like driving a vehicle. Is there an inherent risk every time you take the wheel? Yes. Does that mean that every time you take the wheel someone is trying to crash into you? No.

You're one to talk about logic! By your logic, we should bentch gomel everytime we drive 3 blocks!! Correct me if I am wrong, but we bentch gomel when:
- We fly overseas (most people do, not everyone)
- We have a major surgery or recover from a life-threatening illness
- A woman gives birth

The common theme here is that all 3 are life threatening.




OK so then we should be on board in the vast majority of cases - not like you posit above that most abortions are due to medical complexities.
You misquoted me - I suggested that women who have abortions beyond the second trimester do so because of medical reasons.


I would imagine that most of the over 50 million babies that have been slain in the U.S. since 1973 do not have any justification whatsoever. The fact that you seem to have been viewing the cruelty of abortion through the lens of an exception case in your opinion, does not have any bearing on the rule because exceptions don’t prove rules.

Imagine what will happen when despicable people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg ym”sh – the Supreme Court’s most ardent protector of abortion rights - finally kicks the bucket. I imagine millions of unborn children who were denied the right to breathe because of people like Ginsburg clawing into her cursed soul and and ripping it apart for eternity, again and again and again...

Dude, you have issues.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Yonah on May 21, 2019, 03:23:08 PM
This is largely false as can be seen here from Florida where they track all abortions http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml (http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml) under by gestation reason

The three reports listed here, only state that there have been 4 recorded 3rd trimester abortions in the last 2+ years - all because of medical reasons?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 03:27:48 PM
Women who have late term abortions do so for medical reasons.
avromie7 says that actual stats prove you wrong.

I grew up in the frum community and over my lifetime there has been a huge shift to the right. Abortion has definitely been a part of that. People used to view being pro-choice as sort of a necessary evil to make sure they were available. Now I find scores of people who are completely against it (likely until their good bais yaakov girl comes home pregnant and gets a heter to abort instead of ruining the rest of her life).

I don't know where you grew up, but its more likely for someone to have a right wing stance because he shifted to the right not the other way around.

BTW, your joke about how scores of hard core anti-abortionists are becoming liberal because their bais yaakov girls are coming home pregnant is antisemitic and in poor taste. Also, by the way, pregnancies are a million times more common in public schools than in frum schools.

Waiting for you to apologize 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 21, 2019, 03:29:47 PM
The three reports listed here, only state that there have been 4 recorded 3rd trimester abortions in the last 2+ years - all because of medical reasons?
I thought we were talking about 2nd trimester too
If we're only talking about 3rd trimester, there is no medical reason in the world that requires a 3rd trimester abortion. Delivery yes, abortion no.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 21, 2019, 03:34:35 PM
This is largely false as can be seen here from Florida where they track all abortions http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml (http://ahca.myflorida.com/MCHQ/Central_Services/Training_Support/Reports.shtml) under by gestation reason
The three reports listed here, only state that there have been 4 recorded 3rd trimester abortions in the last 2+ years - all because of medical reasons?
I thought we were talking about 2nd trimester too
Late stage is not a very well defined term. The reality is that elective abortions probably drop off a cliff at the point where a medical abortion is no longer available, for the simple reason that you're electing surgery, which is a much more serious thing than taking medication.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 21, 2019, 03:38:30 PM
I thought we were talking about 2nd trimester too
If we're only talking about 3rd trimester, there is no medical reason in the world that requires a 3rd trimester abortion. Delivery yes, abortion no.
Your own source contradicts that assertion. Both 2018 and 2017 show one 3rd trimester abortion "due to a Life Endangering Physical Condition" (ie danger to the mother).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 21, 2019, 03:49:56 PM
Your own source contradicts that assertion. Both 2018 and 2017 show one 3rd trimester abortion "due to a Life Endangering Physical Condition" (ie danger to the mother).
Just because it was done does not mean it was needed. When the mothers life is in danger in the 3rd trimester there are 2 options abortion and delivery, both would save the mothers life, but only one gives the baby a chance to live.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 03:50:05 PM
You're one to talk about logic! By your logic, we should bentch gomel everytime we drive 3 blocks!! Correct me if I am wrong, but we bentch gomel when:
- We fly overseas (most people do, not everyone)
- We have a major surgery or recover from a life-threatening illness
- A woman gives birth
The common theme here is that all 3 are life threatening.
No sir. Your logic is impaired not mine. There are two very different types of danger. One is specific, such as your neighbor chasing you with a knife or a woman told by her doctor that if she does not end her pregnancy she will die.
Now get ready for another type of danger. It is a general one. It is the type of danger you are in when you get behind the wheel or when you fly. It is a very real danger because accidents happen, but it is not a specific one so long as nothing actually goes wrong. Got it?

You misquoted me - I suggested that women who have abortions beyond the second trimester do so because of medical reasons.
OK. Say they are killing the baby in month 6 because the child will be down syndrome. Therefore? Are you saying that a down syndrome child has less rights to breathe than a regular child? That's disgusting. And what about the millions of murdered babies in their first trimester because the disgusting egocentric lowlife didn't want to have to suffer through carrying a baby?
Dude, you have issues.
Based on your advocating for murdering babies, I would argue very strongly to the contrary that your issues are more severe than you realize.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 21, 2019, 04:02:07 PM
Just because it was done does not mean it was needed. When the mothers life is in danger in the 3rd trimester there are 2 options abortion and delivery, both would save the mothers life, but only one gives the baby a chance to live.
I feel confident saying you can't credibly make this assertion.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 04:11:50 PM
I feel confident saying you can't credibly make this assertion.

It's very credible.  It's true.
In developed countries,  as a rule babies delivered in the third trimester live.  If there is time for a D&C, there is time for a delivery. If there is not, a c-section to deliver is no more traumatic to the mother that a c-section to abort.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 21, 2019, 04:13:41 PM
avromie7 says that actual stats prove you wrong.

I don't know where you grew up, but its more likely for someone to have a right wing stance because he shifted to the right not the other way around.

BTW, your joke about how scores of hard core anti-abortionists are becoming liberal because their bais yaakov girls are coming home pregnant is antisemitic and in poor taste. Also, by the way, pregnancies are a million times more common in public schools than in frum schools.

Waiting for you to apologize 


Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of great statistics about late term abortions. What we do know is that is is a tiny fraction (under 2%). I should have written that the people I know with late term abortions were all for fetal anomalies.

I grew up in Monsey. Is that right wing enough for you? ;-) Are you denying that as a whole, communities have shifted to the right? Different discussion for a different time.

As to my "joke" - it really isn't. It is absolutely the equivalent of the Republican Senator who is anti abortion until his mistress gets pregnant.  You don't have to believe me, but there are some Bais Yaakov girls who have gotten heterim to abort because a pregnancy would ruin their lives. Who would marry a girl who had a baby at 16 our of wedlock in the Yeshivish community? 

I don't know exactly what you want me to apologize for.  If you are really serious about reducing the number of abortions (which have been declining every year of late), then I suggest you research the root cause of unwanted pregnancies and then work to help that.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: skyguy918 on May 21, 2019, 04:17:51 PM
It's very credible.  It's true.
In developed countries,  as a rule babies delivered in the third trimester live.  If there is time for a D&C, there is time for a delivery. If there is not, a c-section to deliver is no more traumatic to the mother that a c-section to abort.
That doesn't address the point at all. The baby can be non-viable, and cause a danger to the mother. The question then becomes which is safer, removing the baby via abortion or via delivery.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 04:32:07 PM
It's very credible.  It's true.
In developed countries,  as a rule babies delivered in the third trimester live.  If there is time for a D&C, there is time for a delivery. If there is not, a c-section to deliver is no more traumatic to the mother that a c-section to abort.
I don't think this is medically accurate.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 04:34:43 PM
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of great statistics about late term abortions. What we do know is that is is a tiny fraction (under 2%). I should have written that the people I know with late term abortions were all for fetal anomalies.
So the majority of abortions are at an earlier stage. That doesn't make it not murder.
 
I grew up in Monsey. Is that right wing enough for you? ;-) Are you denying that as a whole, communities have shifted to the right? Different discussion for a different time.
I would argue that some Jewish communities have drifted to the left and others to the right. It's nice that your community seems to have moved closer to G-d, but my point was that a right wing viewpoint is probably the result of said shift, not as you argue that the shift is due to people suddenly spouting right wing opinions and then because of those opinions shifting to the right....

As to my "joke" - it really isn't. It is absolutely the equivalent of the Republican Senator who is anti abortion until his mistress gets pregnant.  You don't have to believe me, but there are some Bais Yaakov girls who have gotten heterim to abort because a pregnancy would ruin their lives. Who would marry a girl who had a baby at 16 our of wedlock in the Yeshivish community? 
Oh so when you wrote that scores of frum girls are coming home from school pregnant changing their parents opinion on abortion you meant it for real? It's getting worse than I thought.
But now you downgrade it to some so you were exaggerating to make your point. Well, it was still in poor taste so you should say I'm sorry.

If you are really serious about reducing the number of abortions (which have been declining every year of late), then I suggest you research the root cause of unwanted pregnancies and then work to help that.
I guess I'm not serious enough since all i'm doing is writing about it instead of working on it. BTW the best way by far to reduce it is by enacting legislation, so then let this be my grassroots hishtadlus

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 04:39:29 PM
So the majority of abortions are at an earlier stage. That doesn't make it not murder.
 I would argue that some Jewish communities have drifted to the left and others to the right. It's nice that your community seems to have moved closer to G-d, but my point was that a right wing viewpoint is probably the result of said shift, not as you argue that the shift is due to people suddenly spouting right wing opinions and then because of those opinions shifting to the right....
Oh so when you wrote that scores of frum girls are coming home from school pregnant changing their parents opinion on abortion you meant it for real? It's getting worse than I thought.
But now you downgrade it to some so you were exaggerating to make your point. Well, it was still in poor taste so you should say I'm sorry.
I guess I'm not serious enough since all i'm doing is writing about it instead of working on it. BTW the best way by far to reduce it is by enacting legislation, so then let this be my grassroots hishtadlus
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control pills low cost and over the counter.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 04:42:42 PM
That doesn't address the point at all. The baby can be non-viable, and cause a danger to the mother. The question then becomes which is safer, removing the baby via abortion or via delivery.

Do you know what 'via abortion' actually means?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 04:42:55 PM
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control pills low cost and over the counter.
umm, those pills are widely available yet millions of abortions are still happening so that probably isn't the very best way.
Legislation is far and away a better option
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 04:45:19 PM
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control pills low cost and over the counter.

100%.  Making abortion on demand illegal will also reduce abortions.  It would probably also hasten the arrival of low cost OTC birth control.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 04:45:43 PM
I don't think this is medically accurate.

Which part?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 04:48:51 PM
umm, those pills are widely available yet millions of abortions are still happening so that probably isn't the very best way.
Legislation is far and away a better option
You need to make an appointment with a dr to get them, and then fill a prescription, which means you need medical insurance with low out of pocket fees for the visit in the first place, and then insurance for the pills themselves.

There are also right wingers who are trying to make it no longer required for health plans to offer birth control as an option.

States that push abstinence only education also aren't helping as they don't make young women aware of the fact that the pill is almost always free after going to 1 Dr. visit.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 04:50:16 PM
Which part?
I think there are situations where a c section
is more risky to the mother than aborting the fetus.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 04:51:56 PM
You could also make plan B free.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 04:54:49 PM
I think there are situations where a c section
is more risky to the mother than aborting the fetus.

What does 'aborting the fetus' mean when we're talking about a 3rd trimester baby?

ETA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Methods

None of these is less risky than delivery of a live baby.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 05:06:29 PM
What does 'aborting the fetus' mean when we're talking about a 3rd trimester baby?

ETA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Methods

None of these is less risky than delivery of a live baby.
Based on what are you saying this?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 21, 2019, 05:10:48 PM
Based on what are you saying this?
Which one do you think is safer for the mother in what situation?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 05:13:13 PM
Which one do you think is safer for the mother in what situation?
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 21, 2019, 05:44:27 PM
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.
My argument is that there is never a need to abort instead of deliver during the 3rd trimester, to that you say if the Dr says abortion is safer for the mother we should allow abortion. That doesn't change the fact that abortion is never necessary to save the mothers life in the 3rd trimester (if it was it would be a different discussion).
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 21, 2019, 06:30:12 PM
You need to make an appointment with a dr to get them, and then fill a prescription, which means you need medical insurance with low out of pocket fees for the visit in the first place, and then insurance for the pills themselves.

There are also right wingers who are trying to make it no longer required for health plans to offer birth control as an option.

Maybe you can explain why Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against repeated Republican efforts to make birth control available over the counter?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 21, 2019, 06:37:18 PM
Maybe you can explain why Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against repeated Republican efforts to make birth control available over the counter?
1. I'm not a Democrat and am not bound to agree with their positions.

2. They seem to think that it will increase out of pocket costs as the ACA mandates it to cost $0 out of pocket, but with a prescription. If it became over the counter, there would be no insurance subsidy which would hurt lower middle class and poorer people.

I am not sure what the best way to go is. Maybe make it available otc but keep it free with a prescription. Not sure how workable that is in practice.

I
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 21, 2019, 06:42:30 PM
For those who are interested in the facts about late term abortion, the (pro- choice, Planned Parenthood founded) Gutmacher institute says that “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

I can't access any direct links on my phone, but here is an article quoting the study. The article is from a Conservative source, but the quotes are from the study - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 07:09:56 PM
For those who are interested in the facts about late term abortion, the (pro- choice, Planned Parenthood founded) Gutmacher institute says that “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

I can't access any direct links on my phone, but here is an article quoting the study. The article is from a Conservative source, but the quotes are from the study - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
All despicable reasons for murder.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 21, 2019, 07:13:30 PM
100%.  Making abortion on demand illegal will also reduce abortions.  It would probably also hasten the arrival of low cost OTC birth control.
exactly.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ckmk47 on May 21, 2019, 08:41:10 PM
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control pills low cost and over the counter.
Condoms and foams/gels are over the counter. 
And condoms have been pushed for  years as a way to minimize catching HIV.
So the argument about OTC birth control is a red herring.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 22, 2019, 01:51:04 AM
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.

So you are conjecturing a situation that I claim to know does not exist.  Of course it is true that Halacha requires you to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I am just saying that today, in developed countries, that is never necessary in the third trimester.  I am not a doctor but I am a thinking person capable of reason.  As I understand it, there is rarely, or more probably, never a situation where it is required to deliver a specifically dead baby rather than a live baby to save the life of the mother. 

Here's how I understand it, feel free to point out what you think is wrong.
If the mothers life is in acute danger due to her continued pregnancy, an emergency c-section is required.  It is not necessary to intentionally kill the baby to preform an emergency c-section.

If the mothers life is not in acute danger and an emergency c-section is not called for, but continuing her pregnancy will have seriously adverse effects on her health, the pregnancy is ended by a) inducing labor or b) dilating the cervix and inserting instruments to dismember the fetus and pull it out piece by piece.  It dies in the process. Sometimes it is killed by crushing it's skull or with an injection prior to dismemberment. There are serious risks associated with option b) and it is not the way Hashem intended.  Option a) requires less intervention and is safer and does not require killing the baby. 

Here are some doctors who agree with me:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 22, 2019, 01:57:01 AM
That doesn't address the point at all. The baby can be non-viable, and cause a danger to the mother. The question then becomes which is safer, removing the baby via abortion or via delivery.

I'm not sure what you think 'via abortion' means.  See above post.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 07:12:51 AM


I am not a doctor but I am a thinking person capable of reason.  As I understand it,



The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 22, 2019, 08:40:32 AM



The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

That is not a refutation.  It is leftist WaPo spin. 

In case of ""premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives."

The doctor they are allegedly refuting says that an emergency delivery may be necessary, it is just never necessary to kill the baby in the process.

"Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients,"

No one is telling a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, some just have an objection to killing the baby unnecessarily.


Just to be clear,  I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  There are many who say they are not.  Who has more ne'emonus?  The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester?  Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus.  Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?


One last thing.  in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.

"“A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”"

I suspect this is a crafty lie.  Watch closely.  Here is a quote from her own blog (https://drjengunter.com/2019/01/29/abortions-at-or-after-24-weeks-are-sometimes-needed-medically-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-wrong/).

Quote
What is an abortion?

Apparently some doctors don’t really grasp this, so here we are.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. In the late 2nd and 3rd trimester it can be accomplished by:

A D & E: dilation and evacuation. Meaning the cervix is dilated and instruments are used to remove the fetus. There are sharp, boney fragments to deal with and so the risk of injury is high if the operator is unskilled. With a skilled operator it is far safer than a c-section.

Induction of labor: essentially the same drugs that we use to induce any labor. If the fetus has lethal anomalies after delivery it will pass away — comfort care is hopefully offered if indicated.  Sometimes when anomalies are severe, but perhaps not lethal we inject a substance (usually potassium chloride) by amniocentesis (so through the pregnant belly into the fetal heart to stop the cardiac activity. It is done when the birth defects are very bad, but perhaps not immediately lethal.

A D & X: dilation and extraction. Dilating the cervix over several days and the fetus is delivered. Sometimes there are also boney fragments to deal with. An amniocentesis may also be done before to stop cardiac activity. This takes great skill. I have done them up to 34 weeks.

There is a false belief that induction of labor early for a lethal anomaly is not an abortion. It is.

The end.

She lists 3 options, D & E, D & X, and induction of labor.

In a D & E and a D & X she tells us there are risks of bony fragments. She neglects to tell of the risks posed by sharp instruments.  She notes that when a D & E is done by a skilled operator, it is safer than a c-section.  This is what she meant when she said an abortion is safer for her and uterus than a delivery.  There is no way a D & E is safer for a uterus than a labor delivery. It is worth noting that  in the case of preeclampsia, (the blood pressure issue she referenced) according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment.  So the Mayo Clinic apparently disagrees that an abortion is safer.

What is clear from her own words is that the safest method is induction of labor which has little risk of injury to the uterus.  This is the method a pro-life doctor would recommend.  She takes pains to point out that this is also an abortion.  That is true if you do it the way she does it, which is to kill the baby in-utero to avoid a failed abortion and having to choose between providing medical care and infanticide.  The pro-life doctor would induce labor with out first killing the baby and provide medical care to the baby if it emerges alive.  If that can be called abortion it is a very different meaning of abortion. 

Bottom line.  In a best case scenario, Dr. Jennifer Gunter's complete disregard for the life of the fetus clouds her judgment and leads her to conclude that the safest option for the mother is one which guarantees that there will be no live baby to have to take care of.

For someone who believes that the fetus' life has value and we should try and keep it alive to the best of our ability, there is never a case where killing a late term fetus clearly benefits the health of the mother.   
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 08:51:21 AM
That is not a refutation.  It is leftist WaPo spin. 

In case of ""premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives."

The doctor they are allegedly refuting says that an emergency delivery may be necessary, it is just never necessary to kill the baby in the process.

"Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients,"

No one is telling a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, some just have an objection to killing the baby unnecessarily.


Just to be clear,  I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  There are many who say they are not.  Who has more ne'emonus?  The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester?  Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus.  Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?


One last thing.  in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.

"“A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”"

I suspect this is a crafty lie.  Watch closely.  Here is a quote from her own blog (https://drjengunter.com/2019/01/29/abortions-at-or-after-24-weeks-are-sometimes-needed-medically-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-wrong/).

She lists 3 options, D & E, D & X, and induction of labor.

In a D & E and a D & X she tells us there are risks of bony fragments. She neglects to tell of the risks posed by sharp instruments.  She notes that when a D & E is done by a skilled operator, it is safer than a c-section.  This is what she meant when she said an abortion is safer for her and uterus than a delivery.  There is no way a D & E is safer for a uterus than a labor delivery. It is worth noting that  in the case of preeclampsia, (the blood pressure issue she referenced) according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment.  So the Mayo Clinic apparently disagrees that an abortion is safer.

What is clear from her own words is that the safest method is induction of labor which has little risk of injury to the uterus.  This is the method a pro-life doctor would recommend.  She takes pains to point out that this is also an abortion.  That is true if you do it the way she does it, which is to kill the baby in-utero to avoid a failed abortion and having to choose between providing medical care and infanticide.  The pro-life doctor would induce labor with out first killing the baby and provide medical care to the baby if it emerges alive.  If that can be called abortion it is a very different meaning of abortion. 

Bottom line.  In a best case scenario, Dr. Jennifer Gunter's complete disregard for the life of the fetus clouds her judgment and leads her to conclude that the safest option for the mother is one which guarantees that there will be no live baby to have to take care of.

For someone who believes that the fetus' life has value and we should try and keep it alive to the best of our ability, there is never a case where killing a late term fetus clearly benefits the health of the mother.   
Regardless of your personal beliefs, you don't have the medical knowledge to make the claims you are.

Additionally, to pivot back to Halacha, before the baby is  born, we do everything up to and including abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. Not to mention the potential psychological harm to a mother having to watch her baby die in front because even at 24 weeks Tue Dr's know that it's not viable.

You also understate the risks of a c section. I will refer you back to the Jewish Reivew interview with Rav Tendler, an expert in this area and the son in law of Rav Moshe -
Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?
Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=175
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 22, 2019, 09:15:56 AM
Regardless of your personal beliefs, you don't have the medical knowledge to make the claims you are.
I think there are situations where a c section
is more risky to the mother than aborting the fetus.

Quote
Additionally, to pivot back to Halacha, before the baby is  born, we do everything up to and including abortion if the life of the mother is at risk.
This was never a matter of dispute here.
All I am saying is I believe the doctors who say that late term abortion is never more effective at alleviating the risk of life to the mother than delivery is.

Quote

Not to mention the potential psychological harm to a mother having to watch her baby die in front because even at 24 weeks Tue Dr's know that it's not viable.

1) This is the subject of a machlokes.  You will be hard pressed to find and Israeli Charedi posek who allows abortion in such a case as R Eliyashiv very forcefully forbid it.  R' Tendler in the link you provided seems to allow it only if there is a risk of suicide.

2) Honest doctors will tell you they usually cannot know for certain which babies will make it and which won't.

Quote
You also understate the risks of a c section. I will refer you back to the Jewish Reivew interview with Rav Tendler, an expert in this area and the son in law of Rav Moshe -
Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?
Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=175

I never stated that a c-section has no risk.  I said that the Mayo Clinic considers it the safest option for a woman who needs to deliver due to preeclampsia.

The question and answer you presented is missing important context.  The original question was is a woman obligated to have a c-section to save the life of her fetus.  A totally different issue to what we are discussing here.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 09:41:58 AM
Quote
The question and answer you presented is missing important context.  The original question was is a woman obligated to have a c-section to save the life of her fetus.  A totally different issue to what we are discussing here.

-1, previous context below:

Jewish Review: What is the Jewish view of requiring a woman to have a caesarean section to save the life of the fetus in the womb?

Rabbi Tendler: The courts in eleven states of the union have actually subjected a woman to a caesarean section in order to save the life of a fetus when the woman had objected to the use of a caesarean section. In what is known as the ?District of Columbia Case,? a pregnant woman who was dying of lymphoma was ordered by the court to have a caesarean in the hope of saving the baby. The woman was dying and had, perhaps, only a week or two to live, but she knew that the caesarean, though it might save the baby, would kill her. She was fully conscious and she opposed the caesarean, and said she wanted to live as long as God gave her days. The court ordered the caesarean, and it was performed. The woman died and unfortunately, the baby died as well. Now, this kind of total disregard for maternal life which was part of the Pro-life opposition in the Klein case, actually has its origins in these types of cases. In the D.C. case the judge, who happened to be Catholic, imposed his theological beliefs on the mother, ignoring the Judaeo-Biblical heritage in favor of the Christian point of view.

Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?

Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

I think it is fair extrapolation to interpret Rav Tendler's statement of "never" requiring a c-section to mean "never" quite literally. Your case is similar to the first response, though with far less risk to the mother. He could have easily qualified he statement of "never" requiring a c-section with a case where we do (extremely low risk to the mother, possibly equal risk to an abortion), but he does not do so - he leaves never in an absolute case.

At this point I have provided a medical source and a Halachic source saying that there might be a valid reason not to mandate c-sections over abortions. You disqualified my medical source by saying that it is leftist spin (which could just as easily be flipped back on one of your sources, who are unambigous in their affiliation:
Quote
DONNA HARRISON, M.D.
Donna Harrison, MD, is Executive Director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
).

The fact that there are Drs who disagree means that there is at least a Leidas HaSafek on the issue, and that legislating in this area is dangerous - it should be up to women to discuss with their Drs and poskim.

I'm not going to belabor this anymore if you are locked into a medical conclusion you read online and won't believe any other evidence.

I'm also not going to get into which poskim allow what because it is besides the point, other than to say that many would consider the Tzitz Eliezer as both Charedi and Israeli. The reason debating which poskim are and are not qualified to opine is because my point is, and continues to be, that given that these extreme cases ought to be litigated by familes, doctors, and Poskim, rather than by lawmakers.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 22, 2019, 09:47:13 AM
-1, previous context below:

Jewish Review: What is the Jewish view of requiring a woman to have a caesarean section to save the life of the fetus in the womb?

Rabbi Tendler: The courts in eleven states of the union have actually subjected a woman to a caesarean section in order to save the life of a fetus when the woman had objected to the use of a caesarean section. In what is known as the ?District of Columbia Case,? a pregnant woman who was dying of lymphoma was ordered by the court to have a caesarean in the hope of saving the baby. The woman was dying and had, perhaps, only a week or two to live, but she knew that the caesarean, though it might save the baby, would kill her. She was fully conscious and she opposed the caesarean, and said she wanted to live as long as God gave her days. The court ordered the caesarean, and it was performed. The woman died and unfortunately, the baby died as well. Now, this kind of total disregard for maternal life which was part of the Pro-life opposition in the Klein case, actually has its origins in these types of cases. In the D.C. case the judge, who happened to be Catholic, imposed his theological beliefs on the mother, ignoring the Judaeo-Biblical heritage in favor of the Christian point of view.

Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?

Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

I think it is fair extrapolation to interpret Rav Tendler's statement of "never" requiring a c-section to mean "never" quite literally. Your case is similar to the first response, though with far less risk to the mother. He could have easily qualified he statement of "never" requiring a c-section with a case where we do (extremely low risk to the mother, possibly equal risk to an abortion), but he does not do so - he leaves never in an absolute case.

At this point I have provided a medical source and a Halachic source saying that there might be a valid reason not to mandate c-sections over abortions. You disqualified my medical source by saying that it is leftist spin (which could just as easily be flipped back on one of your sources, who are unambigous in their affiliation: ).

The fact that there are Drs who disagree means that there is at least a Leidas HaSafek on the issue, and that legislating in this area is dangerous - it should be up to women to discuss with their Drs and poskim.

I'm not going to belabor this anymore if you are locked into a medical conclusion you read online and won't believe any other evidence.

I'm also not going to get into which poskim allow what because it is besides the point, other than to say that many would consider the Tzitz Eliezer as both Charedi and Israeli. The reason debating which poskim are and are not qualified to opine is because my point is, and continues to be, that given that these extreme cases ought to be litigated by familes, doctors, and Poskim, rather than by lawmakers.
You're twisting his words. Never required means when the other option is do nothing, it does not mean when the options are c section or abortion.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 09:53:56 AM
You're twisting his words. Never required means when the other option is do nothing, it does not mean when the options are c section or abortion.
He says all c sections are inherantly risky and we never mandate it. He gives no indication that calculation would change based on other factors. Given than until the head comes out the mother's life takes precedence, if it came to it, you do what we you need to if the woman steadfastly refuses a c section.

If you could provide a source that is clearee to your read into it, please do.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 09:58:17 AM
Again, this is all moot. If a women's posek follows a view such as the tzeitz Eliezer, who has a more permissive view, that should be their right.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: avromie7 on May 22, 2019, 10:14:30 AM
He says all c sections are inherantly risky and we never mandate it. He gives no indication that calculation would change based on other factors. Given than until the head comes out the mother's life takes precedence, if it came to it, you do what we you need to if the woman steadfastly refuses a c section.

If you could provide a source that is clearee to your read into it, please do.
Because I don't have a less twisted source doesn't make your twisted source correct. He is very clearly referring to either c-section or do nothing. It's like comparing a psak to not resuscitate to pulling the plug when the only other option is resuscitate. (I know my example is not perfect, but it should bring the point across. You're need to find a psak that fits your viewpoint doesn't give you a right to twist Rabbi Tendler's words.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 22, 2019, 10:31:11 AM
-1, previous context below:

Jewish Review: What is the Jewish view of requiring a woman to have a caesarean section to save the life of the fetus in the womb?

Rabbi Tendler: The courts in eleven states of the union have actually subjected a woman to a caesarean section in order to save the life of a fetus when the woman had objected to the use of a caesarean section. In what is known as the ?District of Columbia Case,? a pregnant woman who was dying of lymphoma was ordered by the court to have a caesarean in the hope of saving the baby. The woman was dying and had, perhaps, only a week or two to live, but she knew that the caesarean, though it might save the baby, would kill her. She was fully conscious and she opposed the caesarean, and said she wanted to live as long as God gave her days. The court ordered the caesarean, and it was performed. The woman died and unfortunately, the baby died as well. Now, this kind of total disregard for maternal life which was part of the Pro-life opposition in the Klein case, actually has its origins in these types of cases. In the D.C. case the judge, who happened to be Catholic, imposed his theological beliefs on the mother, ignoring the Judaeo-Biblical heritage in favor of the Christian point of view.

Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?

Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

I think it is fair extrapolation to interpret Rav Tendler's statement of "never" requiring a c-section to mean "never" quite literally. Your case is similar to the first response, though with far less risk to the mother. He could have easily qualified he statement of "never" requiring a c-section with a case where we do (extremely low risk to the mother, possibly equal risk to an abortion), but he does not do so - he leaves never in an absolute case.

At this point I have provided a medical source and a Halachic source saying that there might be a valid reason not to mandate c-sections over abortions. You disqualified my medical source by saying that it is leftist spin (which could just as easily be flipped back on one of your sources, who are unambigous in their affiliation: ).

The fact that there are Drs who disagree means that there is at least a Leidas HaSafek on the issue, and that legislating in this area is dangerous - it should be up to women to discuss with their Drs and poskim.

I'm not going to belabor this anymore if you are locked into a medical conclusion you read online and won't believe any other evidence.

I'm also not going to get into which poskim allow what because it is besides the point, other than to say that many would consider the Tzitz Eliezer as both Charedi and Israeli. The reason debating which poskim are and are not qualified to opine is because my point is, and continues to be, that given that these extreme cases ought to be litigated by familes, doctors, and Poskim, rather than by lawmakers.

I concede that I missed the part in bold above. Of course c-sections are inherently risky as are all surgeries. So are abortions. I agree with @avromie7. He is not discussing a case where there is a choice between two options that have risk, say a D & E and a c-section.

I did not dismiss the pro-choice medical opinions as leftist spin. It's the WaPo presenting the pro-choice position as 'refuting' the pro-life positing which is leftist spin.  Simply stating an opposing view is not a refutation.

I am certainly open to evidence that there are medically indicated late term abortions, I have yet to see any.  Above I wrote why I am bias to the pro life doctors.


Just to be clear,  I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  There are many who say they are not.  Who has more ne'emonus?  The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester?  Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus.  Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?


Again, this is all moot. If a women's posek follows a view such as the tzeitz Eliezer, who has a more permissive view, that should be their right.

I wouldn't say it's moot, but I agree in general with your sentiment. Regardless, most shailos that come before poskim today would side step this issue, as this issue is irrelevant to rape or non-viable fetus sheilos and I imagine in most cases involving a frum mothers health she will want to keep the baby if at all possible.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 22, 2019, 10:46:04 AM
It is very sad to be seeing a machlokes haposkim between Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 22, 2019, 10:51:07 AM
I concede that I missed the part in bold above. Of course c-sections are inherently risky as are all surgeries. So are abortions. I agree with @avromie7. He is not discussing a case where there is a choice between two options that have risk, say a D & E and a c-section.

I did not dismiss the pro-choice medical opinions as leftist spin. It's the WaPo presenting the pro-choice position as 'refuting' the pro-life positing which is leftist spin.  Simply stating an opposing view is not a refutation.

I am certainly open to evidence that there are medically indicated late term abortions, I have yet to see any.  Above I wrote why I am bias to the pro life doctors.

I wouldn't say it's moot, but I agree in general with your sentiment. Regardless, most shailos that come before poskim today would side step this issue, as this issue is irrelevant to rape or non-viable fetus sheilos and I imagine in most cases involving a frum mothers health she will want to keep the baby if at all possible.
I conceed that Rav tendler does not discuss c section vs an equally risky abortion method if those are the only 2 options, but I think the context suggests that if there's even a slight satety advantage in the favor of abortion in these cases, he would say to abort. I would love to find a way to clarify with him, however.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 23, 2019, 05:18:32 AM
So the majority of abortions are at an earlier stage. That doesn't make it not murder.
 I would argue that some Jewish communities have drifted to the left and others to the right. It's nice that your community seems to have moved closer to G-d, but my point was that a right wing viewpoint is probably the result of said shift, not as you argue that the shift is due to people suddenly spouting right wing opinions and then because of those opinions shifting to the right....
Oh so when you wrote that scores of frum girls are coming home from school pregnant changing their parents opinion on abortion you meant it for real? It's getting worse than I thought.
But now you downgrade it to some so you were exaggerating to make your point. Well, it was still in poor taste so you should say I'm sorry.
I guess I'm not serious enough since all i'm doing is writing about it instead of working on it. BTW the best way by far to reduce it is by enacting legislation, so then let this be my grassroots hishtadlus



Yes most abortions are early stages, which means that if we look at why those unplanned pregnancies are happening,  we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions.  That's the best method for reducing abortions.

We can leave the right/left debate for another time because it really isn't valuable for discussion. 

I never said scores of bais yaakov girls are getting abortions but it isn't as uncommon as you think.  It's not like one girl in 70 years.  But rabbonim do give heterim for abortions in those situations. 

I think legislation to prevent abortions can be extreme and punishing to vulnerable women. I think that it is a medical procedure to be decided by a woman and her medical team and I think it should be rarely chosen.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 06:51:43 AM


I think legislation to prevent abortions can be extreme and punishing to vulnerable women. I think that it is a medical procedure to be decided by a woman and her medical team and I think it should be rarely chosen.

That is a very reasonable position if taken in a vacuum. 

The reality is that the values of vast portions of the population have succumbed Progressive ideology and believe a fetus at all stages of development is a clump of cells akin to a tumor.  Many, many women and their medical teams have decided that an abortion is appropriate for the most trivial of reasons.  How do you propose a state where the majority of the legislators think that this is a travesty go about improving the situation short of legislation?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 23, 2019, 09:49:59 AM
That is a very reasonable position if taken in a vacuum. 

The reality is that the values of vast portions of the population have succumbed Progressive ideology and believe a fetus at all stages of development is a clump of cells akin to a tumor.  Many, many women and their medical teams have decided that an abortion is appropriate for the most trivial of reasons.  How do you propose a state where the majority of the legislators think that this is a travesty go about improving the situation short of legislation?

I think in states where the vast majority of legislators think abortion is a travesty, need to step up funding for social services, stop abstinence only education and make birth control readily available. In states where the legislators think abortion is a travesty, they seem to do the opposite. They are effectively punishing vulnerable women in both directions.

What they can also do is criminalize causing an unwanted pregnancy. So men would be liable. I think it would make men more responsible since they cause the unwanted pregnancies to begin with. I don't think any man would vote for that though.

I also think that restricting abortions like the southern states are trying is being done in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 10:21:22 AM
Yes most abortions are early stages, which means that if we look at why those unplanned pregnancies are happening,  we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions.  That's the best method for reducing abortions.
woman and her medical team and I think it should be rarely chosen.
the best method is legislation.
 
I think that it is a medical procedure to be decided by a woman and her medical team and I think it should be rarely chosen.
Boruch999 said it better than I could. Leaving the choice to murder the baby in the hands of the woman or her doctors is dangerous since they will opt for it for terrible reasons. She doesn't feel up to carrying the baby. The baby will be down syndrome. The mother is emotionally drained. Therefore......the baby's life should be snuffed out? No, we need serious legislation to protect the baby's life from the hands of murderers.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 10:22:49 AM
the best method is legislation.
 Boruch999 said it better than I could. Leaving the choice to murder the baby in the hands of the woman or her doctors is dangerous since they will opt for it for terrible reasons. She doesn't feel up to carrying the baby. The baby will be down syndrome. The mother is emotionally drained. Therefore......the baby's life should be snuffed out? No, we need serious legislation to protect the baby's life from the hands of murderers.
Would you support child support payments from conception? Fathers pay for 50% of prenatal visits, delivery etc?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 10:31:39 AM
Would you support child support payments from conception? Fathers pay for 50% of prenatal visits, delivery etc?
100%

ETA: I currently pay 100%  ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 10:36:40 AM
Would you support child support payments from conception? Fathers pay for 50% of prenatal visits, delivery etc?
Dumb liberal argument. Libs are crying that if Alabama views the fetus as a life, it should have all the other rights, such as child support, due process, and citizenship.

And the answer is don't be an idiot. Learn how to differentiate between things, which is the hallmark of intelligence. A baby is alive in the womb. Someone who kills that baby is a murderer. But not all human beings deserve the exact same rights, just as a child, who is a full fledged human being, does not receive Medicare and can not vote. Privileges start a different times.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 10:48:43 AM
Dumb liberal argument. Libs are crying that if Alabama views the fetus as a life, it should have all the other rights, such as child support, due process, and citizenship.

And the answer is don't be an idiot. Learn how to differentiate between things, which is the hallmark of intelligence. A baby is alive in the womb. Someone who kills that baby is a murderer. But not all human beings deserve the exact same rights, just as a child, who is a full fledged human being, does not receive Medicare and can not vote. Privileges start a different times.
Why should the woman bear the full cost for this life? Child support payments help the mother, not the baby.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 10:49:49 AM
I think in states where the vast majority of legislators think abortion is a travesty, need to step up funding for social services, stop abstinence only education and make birth control readily available. In states where the legislators think abortion is a travesty, they seem to do the opposite. They are effectively punishing vulnerable women in both directions.

What they can also do is criminalize causing an unwanted pregnancy. So men would be liable. I think it would make men more responsible since they cause the unwanted pregnancies to begin with. I don't think any man would vote for that though.

I also think that restricting abortions like the southern states are trying is being done in a vacuum.

I may be out of touch but I have a hard time believing that a significant percentage of unwanted pregnancies are because they didn't know about or couldn't get bc.  I prefer not to elaborate.

 
I don't know what to make of your suggestion to criminalize the men.  1) Who says he doesn't want the pregnancy?  Under current law, he doesn't have a say.  2) Why is he more responsible than her, barring instances of rape?
3) How could such a law be enforceable? He'll claim he wanted it at the time but now changed his mind.  Are you going to criminalize changing of mind?

Also, from a morality point of view, abortion is ok, but pregnancy is criminal?  Absurd.


I don't know what you mean by your last line but it's clear and it's been the stated goal of these laws to provoke a SCOTUS challenge to Roe.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 10:51:46 AM
Dumb liberal argument. Libs are crying that if Alabama views the fetus as a life, it should have all the other rights, such as child support, due process, and citizenship.

And the answer is don't be an idiot. Learn how to differentiate between things, which is the hallmark of intelligence. A baby is alive in the womb. Someone who kills that baby is a murderer. But not all human beings deserve the exact same rights, just as a child, who is a full fledged human being, does not receive Medicare and can not vote. Privileges start a different times.

What does any of this have to do with holding the man jointly responsible for the pregnancy he caused together with the woman?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 23, 2019, 11:04:54 AM
I think in states where the vast majority of legislators think abortion is a travesty, need to step up funding for social services, stop abstinence only education and make birth control readily available. In states where the legislators think abortion is a travesty, they seem to do the opposite. They are effectively punishing vulnerable women in both directions.

What they can also do is criminalize causing an unwanted pregnancy. So men would be liable. I think it would make men more responsible since they cause the unwanted pregnancies to begin with. I don't think any man would vote for that though.

I also think that restricting abortions like the southern states are trying is being done in a vacuum.
So lets make condoms easily available and criminalize rape. Why didn't anyone think of that until now?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ckmk47 on May 23, 2019, 11:08:53 AM
Would you support child support payments from conception? Fathers pay for 50% of prenatal visits, delivery etc?
The government already helps out poor women in this situation.  Medicaid, WIC, food stamps...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 11:15:24 AM
The government already helps out poor women in this situation.  Medicaid, WIC, food stamps...
How much does Alabama do? They voted against medicaid expansion, want to get rid of the ACA etc.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 12:06:27 PM
Why should the woman bear the full cost for this life? Child support payments help the mother, not the baby.
If there is a good argument why the man should bear part of the cost, then so be it. So, after outlawing murder the next step should be to consider if husbands paying child support should start earlier.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 12:10:08 PM
If there is a good argument why the man should bear part of the cost, then so be it. So, after outlawing murder the next step should be to consider if husbands paying child support should start earlier.
It's not a next step as abortion doesn't take place in a vaccum.

It would be like outlawing smoking because cigarettes kill, without figuring out how to treat people who are addicted to nicotine. Or like the GND banning air travel without funding a replacement.

So while a clear cut moral argument exists to ban abortion in most cases, there are people who's lives will be very much affected by this and who need to be considered at the forefront of this.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 12:18:32 PM
It's not a next step as abortion doesn't take place in a vaccum.

It would be like outlawing smoking because cigarettes kill, without figuring out how to treat people who are addicted to nicotine. Or like the GND banning air travel without funding a replacement.

So while a clear cut moral argument exists to ban abortion in most cases, there are people who's lives will be very much affected by this and who need to be considered at the forefront of this.
Wrong. the very first immediate action necessary is to stop the killings. That is far and away our most urgent concern.

After that we can figure out how to help women who need financial help form their spouses.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 01:09:43 PM
Wrong. the very first immediate action necessary is to stop the killings. That is far and away our most urgent concern.

After that we can figure out how to help women who need financial help form their spouses.
+1
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 23, 2019, 01:20:35 PM
the best method is legislation.
The best method to stop alcohol-related deaths (of which there are around 88k per year according to the CDC) is also legislation. Prohibition didn't work out that well here did it?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 23, 2019, 01:23:24 PM
After that we can figure out how to help women who need financial help form their spouses.
That's all very nice except that, as @Boruch999 so eloquently put it, we don't live in a vacuum. Laws have consequences and you have to be prepared for them when you enact one. We all see what happened with Obamacare.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 01:35:44 PM
The best method to stop alcohol-related deaths (of which there are around 88k per year according to the CDC) is also legislation. Prohibition didn't work out that well here did it?
+1
It's like nobody here understands how society works. Our war on drugs is also going swimmingly.

Yes, abortion is bad when the reason is bad. You can try fix it by making it illegal, which will probably stop some abortions, but will create an unsafe black market in the process. I'm not sure it is helpful for someone to get an abortion with a hanger in someone's basement.

You could also try to influence social policy to provide better funding for women with unwanted pregnancies, cheaper contraception coverage, better post-birth maternity coverage and care, better foster systems etc. That will stop some abortions, but since there are no disincentives for abortion, will only go so far.

You can also try to do both - make abortions illegal in most cases, leave reasonable exceptions in place when you know a woman is going to do it underground anyway, but also try to solve for the fundemental social issues that cause women to seek abortions in the first place.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 23, 2019, 01:44:25 PM
+1
It's like nobody here understands how society works. Out war on drugs is also going swimmingly.

Yes, abortion is bad when the reason is bad. You can try fix it by making it illegal, which will probably stop some abortions, but will create an unsafe black market in the process. I'm not sure it is helpful for someone to get an abortion with a hanger in someone's basement.

You could also try to influence social policy to provide better funding for women with unwanted pregnancies, cheaper contraception coverage, better post-birth maternity coverage and care, better foster systems etc. That will stop some abortions, but since there are no disincentives for abortion, will only go so far.

You can also try to do both - make abortions illegal in most cases, leave reasonable exceptions in place when you know a woman is going to do it underground anyway, but also try to solve for the fundemental social issues that cause women to seek abortions in the first place.
I think part of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of government. Government isn't just there to stop people from doing things, it's there to improve and help our society in any way that it can without overstepping it's boundaries. We can argue what those boundaries are but making BC more easily available and improving sex-ed classes isn't going into anywhere that the government isn't already involved in anyway.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 01:47:41 PM
To couch this in different terms - legal abortions don't kill fetuses, people kill fetuses. So long as people feel that an abortion is their only choice, they will find a way to get around whatever laws.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yos9694 on May 23, 2019, 03:14:36 PM
It's not a next step as abortion doesn't take place in a vaccum.

It literally does.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 03:26:16 PM
The best method to stop alcohol-related deaths (of which there are around 88k per year according to the CDC) is also legislation. Prohibition didn't work out that well here did it?
There is no comparison. And the fact that prohibition did not work then does not mean that any other legislation on any other issue won't work either.

Also keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between alcohol and abortion. Alcohol on its face isn't bad. It only becomes a problem when abused. An abortion means slaying a baby which is horrifically wrong (with rare exception such as when the mother's life is in danger).
That's all very nice except that, as @Boruch999 so eloquently put it, we don't live in a vacuum. Laws have consequences and you have to be prepared for them when you enact one. We all see what happened with Obamacare.
Right but in very urgent cases like when the Jews were being annihilated in World War II only an anti-semite would suggest not liberating the inmates before having somewhere to place them.

Obviously if there was a solution right away, great. But if not, you first stop the killings, then work on what to do next. It is the same thing with abortion, assuming you agree that baby killing is problematic.
 
I think part of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of government. Government isn't just there to stop people from doing things, it's there to improve and help our society in any way that it can without overstepping it's boundaries. We can argue what those boundaries are but making BC more easily available and improving sex-ed classes isn't going into anywhere that the government isn't already involved in anyway.
I would argue strenuously that government is there to both improve and help society as well as stop people from doing things. Examples that come to mind would be homicide, theft, rape, and…..crazy people killing their babies.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 03:41:51 PM
To couch this in different terms - legal abortions don't kill fetuses, people kill fetuses. So long as people feel that an abortion is their only choice, they will find a way to get around whatever laws.

1) If baby killings were outlawed there would be far less abortions regardless of how you view it. As far as the "black market for abortions" would go, it's not like sneaking to the back of the store and buying some whiskey during prohibition.  Where exactly would the woman go? To her neighbor’s basement? To the butcher? No, many people would probably be very afraid to try it illegally.

2) Even regarding those people who would illegally kill their babies – it’s like any other law. People steal. Should we therefore not outlaw stealing?

3) As mentioned above, after outlawing abortion, the next important steps would be to figure out ways that would make people less interested in such things, as well as finding places for those children to live, far away from the subhuman that would have preferred their baby dead.   
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 23, 2019, 03:45:03 PM
1) If baby killings were outlawed there would be far less abortions regardless of how you view it. As far as the "black market for abortions" would go, it's not like sneaking to the back of the store and buying some whiskey during prohibition.  Where exactly would the woman go? To her neighbor’s basement? To the butcher? No, many people would probably be very afraid to try it illegally.

2) Even regarding those people who would illegally kill their babies – it’s like any other law. People steal. Should we therefore not outlaw stealing?

3) As mentioned above, after outlawing abortion, the next important steps would be to figure out ways that would make people less interested in such things, as well as finding places for those children to live, far away from the subhuman that would have preferred their baby dead.

You undercut your argument with this.  Remove it and I'll delete this.  Also, halevai she should have a change of heart and choose to keep and love her baby.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 03:55:28 PM
You undercut your argument with this.  Remove it and I'll delete this.  Also, halevai she should have a change of heart and choose to keep and love her baby.
How so? It was argued above that there are women incapable of caring for their babies for various reasons, which is a twisted attempt to make abortion less abominable. My point is that after the government steps in and says no to murder, it should find a place for the kid.

Now that the baby is allowed to breathe, if the mama was hoping to kill it, she is a very bad choice for raising that kid. First off she wanted to kill. Second, that child won't get much love because she was forced to keep it. So, the logical thing would be to give the baby to a compassionate person who would adopt and care for the child.

That said, if the mother clearly was not with the program during her pregnancy and now very much loves the child and wants to raise it with love, that would be a different situation. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 04:12:54 PM
How so? It was argued above that there are women incapable of caring for their babies for various reasons, which is a twisted attempt to make abortion less abominable. My point is that after the government steps in and says no to murder, it should find a place for the kid.

Now that the baby is allowed to breathe, if the mama was hoping to kill it, she is a very bad choice for raising that kid. First off she wanted to kill. Second, that child won't get much love because she was forced to keep it. So, the logical thing would be to give the baby to a compassionate person who would adopt and care for the child.

That said, if the mother clearly was not with the program during her pregnancy and now very much loves the child and wants to raise it with love, that would be a different situation.
You're off the rails. Happy to continue reasoned debate with other people here, but somehow you went from abortion is murder to saying that women who would get an abortion and choose not to because it is illegal are "subhuman". So it's not only people who get abortions who are bad according to you, but even people who think about abortion.

I pray that nobody in your life ever has a traumatic pregnancy, and then even thinks about abortion.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 23, 2019, 04:17:19 PM
How so? It was argued above that there are women incapable of caring for their babies for various reasons, which is a twisted attempt to make abortion less abominable. My point is that after the government steps in and says no to murder, it should find a place for the kid.

Now that the baby is allowed to breathe, if the mama was hoping to kill it, she is a very bad choice for raising that kid. First off she wanted to kill. Second, that child won't get much love because she was forced to keep it. So, the logical thing would be to give the baby to a compassionate person who would adopt and care for the child.

That said, if the mother clearly was not with the program during her pregnancy and now very much loves the child and wants to raise it with love, that would be a different situation.
You're living in a bubble. Do you honestly think that the hundreds of thousands of women who have had abortions in this country are heartless people who just want to kill babies? Do you have any idea what it means for most of these people to go through the trauma of having an abortion? When democrats say that the republicans arguing for making abortion illegal are just women haters, it's people like you who they are reffering to.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 04:36:26 PM
You're off the rails. Happy to continue reasoned debate with other people here, but somehow you went from abortion is murder to saying that women who would get an abortion and choose not to because it is illegal are "subhuman". So it's not only people who get abortions who are bad according to you, but even people who think about abortion.

I pray that nobody in your life ever has a traumatic pregnancy, and then even thinks about abortion.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, as per Wikipedia, the vast majority of women who have an abortion do it for entirely unjustifiable reason.
Let's take the most common reason given (see below): Having a baby would dramatically change my life

That's similar to stabbing your neighbor.

Even contimplating stabbing your neighbor is not a very human thing to do. Actually it's sub-human because humans are expected to be above seriously contemplating murder, especially if it is their very own child in their very own belly.

Notice how the vast majority of abortions (below) are non-health related.

Reason for choosing to have an abortion
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38%   Have completed my childbearing
32%   Not ready for another child
25%   Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22%   Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
14%   Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13%   Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12%   Concerns about my health
6%   Parents want me to have an abortion
1%   Was a victim of rape
less than .5%   Became pregnant as a result of incest
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 04:52:23 PM
You're living in a bubble. Do you honestly think that the hundreds of thousands of women who have had abortions in this country are heartless people who just want to kill babies? Do you have any idea what it means for most of these people to go through the trauma of having an abortion? When democrats say that the republicans arguing for making abortion illegal are just women haters, it's people like you who they are reffering to.
Get a grip. Look at the list below of stats from 2004. What percentage of cases are even slightly justifiable? Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do it make it any better? Hundreds of thousands of people do horrific things - therefore we shouldn't call it out for what it is?

Are they heartless people? 100%
Do they just want to kill babies? Well, they have a reason, but it is a pathetic excuse for living a grotesque self-centered life where no one else counts.
Do I understand the trauma of an abortion? Perhaps not, but that is all the more reason not to do it. I've heard that some people live with pangs of guilt after doing an abortion. Barring an uncommon justifiable reason, they well deserve it. 

As far as "woman haters" go, it's a red herring. Classic liberal move to classify something as "hateful" or some other adjective without qualifying. "Hate" is a feeling that is sometimes justified, such as feeling hatred toward Nazis and rapists. So we need to ask a question: what type of hatred are we talking about (smart, isn't it?). If the answer is hate toward someone who would callously destroy their baby, well, that's a very valid form of disapproval, hate and disgust. 

Reason for choosing to have an abortion
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38%   Have completed my childbearing
32%   Not ready for another child
25%   Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22%   Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
14%   Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13%   Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12%   Concerns about my health
6%   Parents want me to have an abortion
1%   Was a victim of rape
less than .5%   Became pregnant as a result of incest
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 04:55:20 PM
Get a grip. Look at the list below of stats from 2004. What percentage of cases are even slightly justifiable? Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do it make it any better? Hundreds of thousands of people do horrific things - therefore we shouldn't call it out for what it is?

Are they heartless people? 100%
Do they just want to kill babies? Well, they have a reason, but it is a pathetic excuse for living a grotesque self-centered life where no one else counts.
Do I understand the trauma of an abortion? Perhaps not, but that is all the more reason not to do it. I've heard that some people live with pangs of guilt after doing an abortion. Barring an uncommon justifiable reason, they well deserve it. 

As far as "woman haters" go, it's a red herring. Classic liberal move to classify something as "hateful" or some other adjective without qualifying. "Hate" is a feeling that is sometimes justified, such as feeling hatred toward Nazis and rapists. So we need to ask a question: what type of hatred are we talking about (smart, isn't it?). If the answer is hate toward someone who would callously destroy their baby, well, that's a very valid form of disapproval, hate and disgust. 

Reason for choosing to have an abortion
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38%   Have completed my childbearing
32%   Not ready for another child
25%   Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22%   Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
14%   Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13%   Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12%   Concerns about my health
6%   Parents want me to have an abortion
1%   Was a victim of rape
less than .5%   Became pregnant as a result of incest
These stats are garbage because people can pick more than 1.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 05:01:52 PM
These stats are garbage because people can pick more than 1.
Why can't it be tallying all reasons gathered including multiple reasons from one source?
And by the way, multiple horrific reasons for ending a life isn't better than just one horrific reason for ending a life.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 05:09:25 PM
Why can't it be tallying all reasons gathered including multiple reasons from one source?
And by the way, multiple horrific reasons for ending a life isn't better than just one horrific reason for ending a life.

You discount the concern that women have if giving birth in poverty or in unstable living situations especially when there is limited government help, which you see as a secondary concern.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 05:12:19 PM
Quote
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38%   Have completed my childbearing
32%   Not ready for another child
25%   Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22%   Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
14%   Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13%   Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12%   Concerns about my health
6%   Parents want me to have an abortion
1%   Was a victim of rape
less than .5%   Became pregnant as a result of incest

The bolded reasons seem like there were serious circumstances.

I'm not going to judge every case, but these don't sound like they are all heartless people. If you can't see past that, then I would encourage you to try to have half as much empathy for living women as you do for fetuses.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 05:20:03 PM
You discount the concern that women have if giving birth in poverty or in unstable living situations especially when there is limited government help, which you see as a secondary concern.
73% cannot afford a baby now.
That sounds like poverty to me, but regardless, the reasons you provide don't qualify for murder.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 05:20:40 PM
Thanks for more reasons that don't reach the bar for ending a life, but perhaps they are far less common than you think, as per the chart above.
They are the 2nd and 3rd most common. Again these women could be misguided but to say they are heartless is highly suspect.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 23, 2019, 05:28:32 PM
Get a grip. Look at the list below of stats from 2004. What percentage of cases are even slightly justifiable? Does the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do it make it any better? Hundreds of thousands of people do horrific things - therefore we shouldn't call it out for what it is?

Are they heartless people? 100%
Do they just want to kill babies? Well, they have a reason, but it is a pathetic excuse for living a grotesque self-centered life where no one else counts.
Do I understand the trauma of an abortion? Perhaps not, but that is all the more reason not to do it. I've heard that some people live with pangs of guilt after doing an abortion. Barring an uncommon justifiable reason, they well deserve it. 

As far as "woman haters" go, it's a red herring. Classic liberal move to classify something as "hateful" or some other adjective without qualifying. "Hate" is a feeling that is sometimes justified, such as feeling hatred toward Nazis and rapists. So we need to ask a question: what type of hatred are we talking about (smart, isn't it?). If the answer is hate toward someone who would callously destroy their baby, well, that's a very valid form of disapproval, hate and disgust. 

Reason for choosing to have an abortion
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38%   Have completed my childbearing
32%   Not ready for another child
25%   Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22%   Do not feel mature enough to raise another child
14%   Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13%   Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12%   Concerns about my health
6%   Parents want me to have an abortion
1%   Was a victim of rape
less than .5%   Became pregnant as a result of incest
I wasn't saying that I think you hate women, I was saying that you are the kind of person they refer to when they say that the republicans just hate women. I personally think that you're just ignorant and your personal opinions on abortion are clouding your ability to recognize what these people are going through, whether what they end up doing is right or wrong. Again, I'm with you in the majority of cases, I don't think most abortions should take place. The problem becomes when you propose laws that don't allow for abortions to take place in the percentage of cases where it should be considered a viable option.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 05:29:52 PM
The bolded reasons seem like there were serious circumstances.

I'm not going to judge every case, but these don't sound like they are all heartless people. If you can't see past that, then I would encourage you to try to have half as much empathy for living women as you do for fetuses.
I suspect that "serious circumstances" is a code word for - in many of those cases - playing around before marriage. According to your logic, someone who did a dirty act deserves more empathy should she decide to terminate her baby because "having a baby would dramatically change my life". Sorry empathy denied. 

Yes, playing around (or not) and then wishing to kill your baby is heartless and I can't see past that.

And yes, I have much less empathy for killers than for the killed, as any sane, non-liberal person would.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 23, 2019, 05:33:34 PM
I suspect that "serious circumstances" is a code word for - in many of those cases - playing around before marriage. According to your logic, someone who did a dirty act deserves more empathy should she decide to terminate her baby because "having a baby would dramatically change my life". Sorry empathy denied. 

Yes, playing around (or not) and then wishing to kill your baby is heartless and I can't see past that.

And yes, I have much less empathy for killers than for the killed, as any sane, non-liberal person would.
You are far too hung up on the change my life reason, which is going to be true of nearly everyone because it is a universal truth - babies change lives.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 05:39:59 PM
I wasn't saying that I think you hate women, I was saying that you are the kind of person they refer to when they say that the republicans just hate women.
Well then they would be widely off the mark, which is highly unsurprising.

I personally think that you're just ignorant and your personal opinions on abortion are clouding your ability to recognize what these people are going through, whether what they end up doing is right or wrong.
Let's say that I do not fully recognize what these people go through. OK. But if they do something wrong, which is usually the case, that means they murdered their baby, so it doesn't really make a difference as far as legislation goes.

Also remember that misplaced mercy on the wicked is actually a form of cruelty.

Again, I'm with you in the majority of cases, I don't think most abortions should take place. The problem becomes when you propose laws that don't allow for abortions to take place in the percentage of cases where it should be considered a viable option.

I want laws that would include exemptions for truly necessary situations. But never forget: they are far and away the minority of cases.


Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 05:44:23 PM
You are far too hung up on the change my life reason, which is going to be true of nearly everyone because it is a universal truth - babies change lives.
OK so let's take many of the other reasons.

Do not want to be single, cannot afford it, don't want people to know that i'm pregnant (!), etc.

A lot of these reasons are code words for uncontrolled lust, but even the ones that aren't are no where near good reasons to snuff out a tiny breathing helpless soul that never wronged anyone and just wants to breathe. Talk about cruelty!!!
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 23, 2019, 10:27:50 PM
@Shkop You can't hold individual women responsible for the fact that society considers abortion a valid choice.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 23, 2019, 10:31:14 PM
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/22/rape-victims-say-pregnancies/

An interesting addition to this conversation. (And no, I don't think all victims of rape feel this way, but it is a perspective that fits with a Torah hashkafa)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 23, 2019, 11:15:45 PM
@Shkop You can't hold individual women responsible for the fact that society considers abortion a valid choice.
Says who?

Prior to the Mabul it was acceptable to take wives from anyone and robbery was rampant. These things became valid choices yet they were held fully accountable. The same goes for Sodom and Gemorrah. The fact that society considered persecuting visitors and guests a valid choice did not help anyone in the city. If you look throughout Tanach it's the same story.

The bottom line is that one is expected to consult with their brain, their conscience, or whatever it is that is in charge of their decision making and come to the not-so-difficult conclusion that killing the baby in their belly is a horrific, sub human thing to do.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 24, 2019, 01:51:43 AM
I feel there is some nuance missing here.

@Shkop Even if we could establish that from a secular standpoint abortion is the equivalent of murder, that does not make the huge number of women who have had abortions murderers in the normal sense of the word.  The vast majority of them would never ever ever consider killing a baby once born. They have been brainwashed by a society that pushes abortion as akin to removal of a tumor.   Abortion providers train their staff how to manipulate vulnerable women to ignore any hangups they may have. These are vulnerable woman who have been conditioned by society to think that abortion is the best option for them.  They must be treated with the utmost compassion. They are certainly not sub-human. They are not wicked.

@shaulyaakov Poverty is certainly a secondary concern that shouldn't come in to consideration at all and those statistics are very telling (assuming the are accurate.)  The mantra of the pro life movement until recently was "Safe Legal and Rare" which shows that even they realized that something as common as poverty or many of the other reasons on the list are not legitimate cause for abortion.   

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 24, 2019, 08:23:24 AM
One thing very clear to anyone reading this thread is that is had very little to do with religion or morality and a lot to do with politics.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 24, 2019, 09:40:07 AM
One thing very clear to anyone reading this thread is that is had very little to do with religion or morality and a lot to do with politics.
This is true. What this argument really boils down to is essentially a machlokes between R' Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe about how much we should push the government to be involved in morality and "zayin mitzvos." R' Moshe held very strongly against it and the Rebbe held very strongly for it. We can go back and forth for days but if you hold like one of them then you're probably not going to be persuaded to hold like the other.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 24, 2019, 11:10:15 AM
This is true. What this argument really boils down to is essentially a machlokes between R' Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe about how much we should push the government to be involved in morality and "zayin mitzvos." R' Moshe held very strongly against it and the Rebbe held very strongly for it. We can go back and forth for days but if you hold like one of them then you're probably not going to be persuaded to hold like the other.

There are actually 3 arguments going on here. One is the above-mentioned, and the other is the machlokes between the Tzitz Eliezer and R' Moshe (and many others) on the morality of abortion in general.

The third is lehavdil;

a machlokes haposkim between Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 24, 2019, 11:13:38 AM
There are actually 3 arguments going on here. One is the above-mentioned, and the other is the machlokes between the Tzitz Eliezer and R' Moshe (and many others) on the morality of abortion in general.

The third is lehavdil;

Interesting, because I only saw one argument here which you called the third and the opinions about the others were all being stuffed into that one.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 24, 2019, 12:28:56 PM
I feel there is some nuance missing here.

@Shkop Even if we could establish that from a secular standpoint abortion is the equivalent of murder,
Granted that there are degrees of murder, but R' Moshe says that abortion is a form of Retzicha for Jew and Gentile alike.


 that does not make the huge number of women who have had abortions murderers in the normal sense of the word.  The vast majority of them would never ever ever consider killing a baby once born. They have been brainwashed by a society that pushes abortion as akin to removal of a tumor.  Abortion providers train their staff how to manipulate vulnerable women to ignore any hangups they may have. These are vulnerable woman who have been conditioned by society to think that abortion is the best option for them.  They must be treated with the utmost compassion. They are certainly not sub-human. They are not wicked.

@shaulyaakov Poverty is certainly a secondary concern that shouldn't come in to consideration at all and those statistics are very telling (assuming the are accurate.)  The mantra of the pro life movement until recently was "Safe Legal and Rare" which shows that even they realized that something as common as poverty or many of the other reasons on the list are not legitimate cause for abortion.

While there probably are young manipulative girls out there, or maybe some vulnerable women manipulated by the horrific staff, there are plenty that know very well or should know. People know what abortion is and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do some very basic research. Google is your friend.

Recall how after the holocaust the Nazis cried that they were just following orders. I don't think anyone really bought into that argument because certain things aren't easily excusable like that. We find this idea in Talmud as well, such as "divrey harav vdivrey hatalmid..." as well as the idea that one can be liable for death if he should have learned (and known better) but didn't.
 
Furthermore, you write that even they know that poverty and other reasons are not legitimate cause for abortion. How do they know? Who informed them? Weren’t they simply conditioned? The answer is that most people understand very clearly what’s happening. Of-course the staff that does the killing are partners in crime as well.

By the way, you don’t have to be a Nazi or a knife wielding bandit with a mask on to be termed wicked. You can be a nice, sweet person who says good morning to everyone, but also thoroughly wicked because you callously killed your blameless baby that never did anything wrong.

And as far as compassion goes, the biggest compassion we can have on these women is to create legislation that will not allow more women or vulnerable brainwashed women and the horrific staff to kill babies. Its compassion on the child!
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yitzgar on May 24, 2019, 12:47:35 PM


We can go back and forth for days but you're probably not going to be persuaded to hold like the other.

This pretty much sums up JS
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yitzgar on May 24, 2019, 12:50:13 PM

This pretty much sums up JS
And the internet
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 24, 2019, 02:36:49 PM
I may be out of touch but I have a hard time believing that a significant percentage of unwanted pregnancies are because they didn't know about or couldn't get bc.  I prefer not to elaborate.

 
I don't know what to make of your suggestion to criminalize the men.  1) Who says he doesn't want the pregnancy?  Under current law, he doesn't have a say.  2) Why is he more responsible than her, barring instances of rape?
3) How could such a law be enforceable? He'll claim he wanted it at the time but now changed his mind.  Are you going to criminalize changing of mind?

Also, from a morality point of view, abortion is ok, but pregnancy is criminal?  Absurd.


I don't know what you mean by your last line but it's clear and it's been the stated goal of these laws to provoke a SCOTUS challenge to Roe.

You are out of touch. I'm not being facetious. How easy do you think it is for a 14 year old in backwater Alabama and has been preached to about abstinence only to get accurate information regarding her cycle, when she can actually get pregnant, how condoms prevent STD and STI and fully understand the ramifications. Or worry that the one pharmacist in town is going to tell her parents that she got birth control or condoms. It is not always easy.

As to criminalizing pregnancy - regardless of whether a man wants the pregnancy or not, if he impregnated a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy it would be an involuntary pregnancy kind of like involuntary manslaughter. Maybe a man who causes 2 unwanted pregnancies should be required to have a vasectomy? She is already held responsible by now being forced to carry the pregnancy. He should be equally responsible in some way no? That definitely includes financially but also in a meaningful legal way. I'm not really serious with thinking this, I just think men don't truly understand the scope of what is being forced on women here. It is way more invasive than forcing a vasectomy.

I also want to point out that rape is hard to prove but involuntary pregnancy is much easier to prove. I know aygart was being facetious but clearly condoms and rape being illegal isn't stopping the problem.



Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 24, 2019, 02:46:28 PM
You are out of touch. I'm not being facetious. How easy do you think it is for a 14 year old in backwater Alabama and has been preached to about abstinence only to get accurate information regarding her cycle, when she can actually get pregnant, how condoms prevent STD and STI and fully understand the ramifications. Or worry that the one pharmacist in town is going to tell her parents that she got birth control or condoms. It is not always easy.

 
This 14 yr old girl who lives in Backwater Alabama , (who i  imagine is a minority of people affected by this law) has real problems if
she is worry that the one pharmacist in town is going to tell her parents that she got birth control or condoms.
and forgets that its the same Pharmacist in Backwater ,Alabama is also the dog catcher and the abortion guy.
Just saying.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 24, 2019, 04:03:06 PM
You are out of touch. I'm not being facetious. How easy do you think it is for a 14 year old in backwater Alabama and has been preached to about abstinence only to get accurate information regarding her cycle, when she can actually get pregnant, how condoms prevent STD and STI and fully understand the ramifications. Or worry that the one pharmacist in town is going to tell her parents that she got birth control or condoms. It is not always easy.

As to criminalizing pregnancy - regardless of whether a man wants the pregnancy or not, if he impregnated a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy it would be an involuntary pregnancy kind of like involuntary manslaughter. Maybe a man who causes 2 unwanted pregnancies should be required to have a vasectomy? She is already held responsible by now being forced to carry the pregnancy. He should be equally responsible in some way no? That definitely includes financially but also in a meaningful legal way. I'm not really serious with thinking this, I just think men don't truly understand the scope of what is being forced on women here. It is way more invasive than forcing a vasectomy.

I also want to point out that rape is hard to prove but involuntary pregnancy is much easier to prove. I know aygart was being facetious but clearly condoms and rape being illegal isn't stopping the problem.




Not sure why you think I was being facetious. That is literally what you were proposing.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: S209 on May 26, 2019, 09:36:02 PM

and yet in the torah/mishna/gemara we see that:
- the punishment for damages that end a pregnancy isn't equivalent to murder.
- A child isn't considered a viable human being until 30 days out of the womb.

-1

See Sanhedrin 57B and Rambam Melachim 9:4
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 08:03:16 AM
Not sure why you think I was being facetious. That is literally what you were proposing.

You think condoms are the only form of birth control? Or that men don't slide them off right before? There is a lot of gray out in the world.

That actually isn't what I am proposing.  I think all men should have vasectomies and then there would be no abortions necessary!
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 27, 2019, 08:17:23 AM
You think condoms are the only form of birth control? Or that men don't slide them off right before? There is a lot of gray out in the world.

That actually isn't what I am proposing.  I think all men should have vasectomies and then there would be no abortions necessary!

Thanks for the clarification.  You are either completely insane or a troll.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 08:36:02 AM
Thanks for the clarification.  You are either completely insane or a troll.

Or being facetious ;-)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 08:40:43 AM
in this case this
You are a troll.
is the same as this
Or being facetious ;-)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 08:46:07 AM
in this case this is the same as this

I thought I made my position clear previously.

Abortions should be legal. Society should work on policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies AND increase social welfare/support to limit the abortions chosen for financial reasons. 

I also think it is very easy for men to think abortions should be banned because they have zero actual responsibility. I do think any legislation that limits women's rights for abortion should pin more rights to the men who impregnated women in some way.  So forcing vasectomies? Maybe facetious and slightly absurd but men 100% need to be more responsible for impregnating women.

[I do think a policy mandating that men who repeatedly impregnate women and then abandon their responsibilities should be forced to limit their reproduction in some way and I am not being facetious]

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 09:26:55 AM
You think condoms are the only form of birth control? Or that men don't slide them off right before? There is a lot of gray out in the world.

That actually isn't what I am proposing.  I think all men should have vasectomies and then there would be no abortions necessary!
So how about you explain what you mean by criminalizing causing an unintended pregnancy other that criminalizing rape?
So how about you explain exactly which forms of birth control you are proposing should be available over the counter other than the ones which already are?

You are writing in very vague terms which left the only interpretation almost to be the way I interpreted it. If you write in more than just vagaries then it can be discussed. If you just write criminalizing unintended pregnancies then it either means a case where it was consensual which leaves to question what the criminal act was or that it was non-consensual in which case it is already criminalized.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 10:05:37 AM
So how about you explain what you mean by criminalizing causing an unintended pregnancy other that criminalizing rape?
So how about you explain exactly which forms of birth control you are proposing should be available over the counter other than the ones which already are?

You are writing in very vague terms which left the only interpretation almost to be the way I interpreted it. If you write in more than just vagaries then it can be discussed. If you just write criminalizing unintended pregnancies then it either means a case where it was consensual which leaves to question what the criminal act was or that it was non-consensual in which case it is already criminalized.

Criminalizing unwanted pregnancies means that any man who causes a woman a pregnancy she doesn't want should be legally responsible for more than just child support.  It should not be as harsh a crime as rape - maybe a misdemeanor.  Is there a reason you would oppose this? [I actually do have concerns about this too - every law has negative effects]

Read this about access/availability. There are ways to increase access and information for women and prevent unplanned pregnancies. You will never prevent all of them.  It is not a new article (2015): https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Access-to-Contraception?IsMobileSet=false

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on May 27, 2019, 10:13:02 AM
Criminalizing unwanted pregnancies means that any man who causes a woman a pregnancy she doesn't want should be legally responsible for more than just child support.  It should not be as harsh a crime as rape - maybe a misdemeanor.  Is there a reason you would oppose this? [I actually do have concerns about this too - every law has negative effects]

Read this about access/availability. There are ways to increase access and information for women and prevent unplanned pregnancies. You will never prevent all of them.  It is not a new article (2015): https://www.acog.org/Clinical-Guidance-and-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/Access-to-Contraception?IsMobileSet=false
What does that mean? Who decides?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 27, 2019, 10:30:59 AM
Criminalizing unwanted pregnancies means that any man who causes a woman a pregnancy she doesn't want should be legally responsible for more than just child support.  It should not be as harsh a crime as rape - maybe a misdemeanor.  Is there a reason you would oppose this? [I actually do have concerns about this too - every law has negative effects]


Why is he more responsible for the pregnancy than she is?

What if she tells him she wants it and then changes her mind?

What if they both want it and then both change their minds?  Will you criminalize the mind change?

Never mind negatives, your whole idea is incoherent.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 10:52:41 AM
Criminalizing unwanted pregnancies means that any man who causes a woman a pregnancy she doesn't want should be legally responsible for more than just child support.  It should not be as harsh a crime as rape - maybe a misdemeanor.  Is there a reason you would oppose this? [I actually do have concerns about this too - every law has negative effects]

Please explain your case of a mutually consensual act where the consequences are criminal for one of the two parties but not the other? Are we only discussing the person who slips off a condom? What about the woman who became pregnant without the man wanting it?

I don't necessarily oppose it. I simply have no clue what you are proposing.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 11:28:57 AM
What does that mean? Who decides?

A woman would have to declare that she would abort her fetus but it is illegal so she is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

Why is he more responsible for the pregnancy than she is?

What if she tells him she wants it and then changes her mind?

What if they both want it and then both change their minds?  Will you criminalize the mind change?

Never mind negatives, your whole idea is incoherent.

A woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is already being forced into "being responsible" - it isn't like she can offer to transfer the pregnancy to a man. What is the repercussion for a man who impregnates a woman when she is forced to carry to term?

Please explain your case of a mutually consensual act where the consequences are criminal for one of the two parties but not the other? Are we only discussing the person who slips off a condom? What about the woman who became pregnant without the man wanting it?

I don't necessarily oppose it. I simply have no clue what you are proposing.

Intercourse itself isn't criminal, but impregnating a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy should be. A man would have to prove that in addition to taking necessary precautions, he discussed the potential pregnancy with a woman and that she understands she could get pregnant and cannot abort the child. A man should be responsible for his sperm at all times. Impregnating a woman who wants to be pregnant is not a crime. A woman who becomes pregnant even if a man doesn't want it is still the one who is carrying the child to term. She is already "being responsible" for the child.

I am open to any ideas that actually make men as responsible for unwanted pregnancies as women, when women cannot abort.



Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 11:46:55 AM
A woman would have to declare that she would abort her fetus but it is illegal so she is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is already being forced into "being responsible" - it isn't like she can offer to transfer the pregnancy to a man. What is the repercussion for a man who impregnates a woman when she is forced to carry to term?

Intercourse itself isn't criminal, but impregnating a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy should be. A man would have to prove that in addition to taking necessary precautions, he discussed the potential pregnancy with a woman and that she understands she could get pregnant and cannot abort the child. A man should be responsible for his sperm at all times. Impregnating a woman who wants to be pregnant is not a crime. A woman who becomes pregnant even if a man doesn't want it is still the one who is carrying the child to term. She is already "being responsible" for the child.

I am open to any ideas that actually make men as responsible for unwanted pregnancies as women, when women cannot abort.
What if she said she was on birth control so he didn't use a condom but then the birth control didn't work?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 27, 2019, 12:09:17 PM
A woman would have to declare that she would abort her fetus but it is illegal so she is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Sure, that won't be abused from day one.
Quote
A woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is already being forced into "being responsible" - it isn't like she can offer to transfer the pregnancy to a man. What is the repercussion for a man who impregnates a woman when she is forced to carry to term?
I agreed above that child support from conception seems very reasonable to me.
Quote
Intercourse itself isn't criminal, but impregnating a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy should be. A man would have to prove that in addition to taking necessary precautions, he discussed the potential pregnancy with a woman and that she understands she could get pregnant and cannot abort the child. A man should be responsible for his sperm at all times. Impregnating a woman who wants to be pregnant is not a crime. A woman who becomes pregnant even if a man doesn't want it is still the one who is carrying the child to term. She is already "being responsible" for the child.
This would be very difficult to prove.  What do you propose? They both sign affidavits prior to each and every encounter?
Quote

I am open to any ideas that actually make men as responsible for unwanted pregnancies as women, when women cannot abort.
As above. But this is a major practical concern.

What if she said she was on birth control so he didn't use a condom but then the birth control didn't work?

How would you propose determining the facts in each case?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 12:36:33 PM
Sure, that won't be abused from day one.I agreed above that child support from conception seems very reasonable to me.This would be very difficult to prove.  What do you propose? They both sign affidavits prior to each and every encounter?As above. But this is a major practical concern.
How would you propose determining the facts in each case?
lets say there were ta few encounters and the aforementioned affidavit was signed only once  . who does the burden of proof lie on to prove when when she got pregnant?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 12:37:28 PM
What if she said she was on birth control so he didn't use a condom but then the birth control didn't work?

Prove it. Then a man isn't liable.

Sure, that won't be abused from day one.I agreed above that child support from conception seems very reasonable to me.This would be very difficult to prove.  What do you propose? They both sign affidavits prior to each and every encounter?As above. But this is a major practical concern.
How would you propose determining the facts in each case?

You view financial responsibility as being as responsible as a woman now being forced to carry a pregnancy to term? There are many potential short and long term ramifications to pregnancy including many health issues and even death. A man will just deny paternity and then not pay.  Meanwhile, a woman can potentially be on bed rest with no viable way to support herself and may end up with many long term complications from pregnancy (including death).  Which brings another interesting point - who is responsible for the death of a woman who died from pregnancy/childbirth of an unwanted pregnancy?

A man will have to figure out a way to document that did have the discussion and the woman agreed, otherwise he is liable to have an "unwanted pregnancy" claim against him. It should be easier than proving rape in many cases.

All pregnancies should be "unwanted" unless proven otherwise by documentation or the affidavit of the pregnant woman. That puts the legal liability of the man since the medical, health and financial liability is really on the woman.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 12:38:18 PM
A woman would have to declare that she would abort her fetus but it is illegal so she is being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy is already being forced into "being responsible" - it isn't like she can offer to transfer the pregnancy to a man. What is the repercussion for a man who impregnates a woman when she is forced to carry to term?

Intercourse itself isn't criminal, but impregnating a woman who doesn't want a pregnancy should be. A man would have to prove that in addition to taking necessary precautions, he discussed the potential pregnancy with a woman and that she understands she could get pregnant and cannot abort the child. A man should be responsible for his sperm at all times. Impregnating a woman who wants to be pregnant is not a crime. A woman who becomes pregnant even if a man doesn't want it is still the one who is carrying the child to term. She is already "being responsible" for the child.

I am open to any ideas that actually make men as responsible for unwanted pregnancies as women, when women cannot abort.




It doesn't sound like you thought this one through. This has no objective way of actually working and no chance of withstanding any level of scrutiny.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 12:42:15 PM
It doesn't sound like you thought this one through. This has no objective way of actually working and no chance of withstanding any level of scrutiny.

Why? How do you propose we hold men legally responsible for causing unwanted pregnancies?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 12:46:47 PM
Why? How do you propose we hold men legally responsible for causing unwanted pregnancies?
definitely not the way you want to... anything less than rape ( excluding maybe slipping of a condom is not exclusively the mans fault)
it takes two to tango
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 12:50:59 PM
Why? How do you propose we hold men legally responsible for causing unwanted pregnancies?

By criminalizing doing the actions which cause it without the consent of the other party.

How do YOU propose we hold men legally responsible for causing unwanted pregnancies?
Even if there is no proposal at all that does not mean this stands up to scrutiny. This would essentially be forcing every man to prove something which is unprovable or be a criminal. "Prove you are not a criminal"
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 12:52:11 PM
Prove it. Then a man isn't liable.
just plain wow!
Which brings another interesting point - who is responsible for the death of a woman who died from pregnancy/childbirth of an unwanted pregnancy?

im truly having a hard time figuring out why its exclusively the mans fault that there was an unwanted pregnancy
All pregnancies should be "unwanted" unless proven otherwise by documentation or the affidavit of the pregnant woman. That puts the legal liability of the man since the medical, health and financial liability is really on the woman.
just plain wow!
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 12:52:19 PM
How would you propose determining the facts in each case?
Exactly my point.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 12:53:54 PM
Prove it. Then a man isn't liable.
That's utterly ridiculous, how would any man be able to prove what the woman told him before they had sex?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 12:54:48 PM
definitely not the way you want to... anything less than rape ( excluding maybe slipping of a condom is not exclusively the mans fault)
it takes two to tango
To some extent the liability does fall slightly more on the man than the woman.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
To some extent the liability does fall slightly more on the man than the woman.
Why ? obviously assuming it was consensual or that the the condom was not slipped off or anything of that sort.
 I see it as being 50-50.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 01:03:16 PM
Why ? obviously assuming it was consensual or that the the condom was not slipped off or anything of that sort.
 I see it as being 50-50.
Mechanically, the woman doesn't do any action to get pregnant while the man can do things to greatly lower the chance of her getting pregnant. I'm not saying it's his fault over hers, just that to some extent he has more control over it than she does.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 27, 2019, 01:04:32 PM
Mechanically, the woman doesn't do any action to get pregnant while the man can do things to greatly lower the chance of her getting pregnant.
A woman has plenty of things that she can do as well ,  to lower her chances of getting pregnant  . Many of them being OTC
mechanics shouldn't make a difference if it was consensual.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 01:22:13 PM
I'm curious how any of you think a man is currently responsible for causing an unwanted pregnancy? Do they carry the pregnancy? Do they take some of the burden of the health risks? Are they legally obligated to care for the woman they impregnated? Are they legally obligated to make sure that if she has other kids or pets or family members she is responsible for that they are taken care of if she cannot take care of them? What happens if she loses her job because she has no more FMLA and therefore cannot pay rent? 

The only obligation that befalls a man is after the baby is born, he and the mother are both financially responsible for the baby based on various factors (where the child lives, what each parent earns etc). As of right now, men are not responsible at all. Nor is there any talk of making them responsible in any way shape or form.

I'm curious what 50-50 legal responsibility means to all of you.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 01:29:44 PM
I'm curious how any of you think a man is currently responsible for causing an unwanted pregnancy? Do they carry the pregnancy? Do they take some of the burden of the health risks? Are they legally obligated to care for the woman they impregnated? Are they legally obligated to make sure that if she has other kids or pets or family members she is responsible for that they are taken care of if she cannot take care of them? What happens if she loses her job because she has no more FMLA and therefore cannot pay rent? 

The only obligation that befalls a man is after the baby is born, he and the mother are both financially responsible for the baby based on various factors (where the child lives, what each parent earns etc). As of right now, men are not responsible at all. Nor is there any talk of making them responsible in any way shape or form.

I'm curious what 50-50 legal responsibility means to all of you.
The first thing to keep in mind here is that it is totally in the woman's power to ensure she does not become pregnant in a consensual relationship. If she did not take those steps there is a strong argument to be made that it is her responsibility. That said, I am all for the father sharing n the financial responsibility of the pregnancy but not necessarily every single far out ramification which he may not have had any way of knowing that he was accepting upon himself.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 27, 2019, 01:41:12 PM
I'm curious how any of you think a man is currently responsible for causing an unwanted pregnancy? Do they carry the pregnancy? Do they take some of the burden of the health risks? Are they legally obligated to care for the woman they impregnated? Are they legally obligated to make sure that if she has other kids or pets or family members she is responsible for that they are taken care of if she cannot take care of them? What happens if she loses her job because she has no more FMLA and therefore cannot pay rent? 

The only obligation that befalls a man is after the baby is born, he and the mother are both financially responsible for the baby based on various factors (where the child lives, what each parent earns etc). As of right now, men are not responsible at all. Nor is there any talk of making them responsible in any way shape or form.

I'm curious what 50-50 legal responsibility means to all of you.
It makes sense that the man should share financial responsibilities, but upthread you said that abortions should be legal.

Just say it straight out. Say that you favor baby slaying. You want Nazi doctors to vacuum out a tiny breathing soul that never hurt anyone. You want cold blooded murder.

There is no need to hide behind farcical catchphrases like "women's right to choose" and what not. Just call a spade a spade. Say, I believe that a mommy has a right to kill her baby by sucking it out of her belly because it is her body. Say, I believe that people can murder if they so choose.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 01:42:49 PM
The first thing to keep in mind here is that it is totally in the woman's power to ensure she does not become pregnant in a consensual relationship. If she did not take those steps there is a strong argument to be made that it is her responsibility. That said, I am all for the father sharing n the financial responsibility of the pregnancy but not necessarily every single far out ramification which he may not have had any way of knowing that he was accepting upon himself.

Bedrest and losing your job is a very normal ramification of pregnancy. If you agree that pregnancy is a normal outcome of intercourse and should be assumed, so should a woman being unable to take care of herself or her own legal obligations.

Right now, a woman has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy and it is her choice how to handle the ramifications of it. If you remove her choice to handle the ramifications of it, then what else are you doing to help her?  Everyone above seems horrified at the idea of a man actually being responsible in some way (other than financially).

I was going to make a point about paternity testing in utero being dangerous via amniocentesis, but I just read about non-invasive prenatal paternity testing. Very interesting. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 27, 2019, 01:45:30 PM
If you remove her choice to handle the ramifications of it, then what else are you doing to help her?
Can you try to think of a better way to help her than killing another human being?

Because that is a very unfair way of helping.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 02:00:57 PM
It makes sense that the man should share financial responsibilities, but upthread you said that abortions should be legal.

Just say it straight out. Say that you favor baby slaying. You want Nazi doctors to vacuum out a tiny breathing soul that never hurt anyone. You want cold blooded murder.

There is no need to hide behind farcical catchphrases like "women's right to choose" and what not. Just call a spade a spade. Say, I believe that a mommy has a right to kill her baby by sucking it out of her belly because it is her body. Say, I believe that people can murder if they so choose.
Just for the record, fetuses don't breathe.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: S209 on May 27, 2019, 02:04:20 PM
Just for the record, fetuses don't breathe.
They do breathe amniotic fluid, although not air like most other humans
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 02:15:14 PM
Bedrest and losing your job is a very normal ramification of pregnancy. If you agree that pregnancy is a normal outcome of intercourse and should be assumed, so should a woman being unable to take care of herself or her own legal obligations.

Right now, a woman has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy and it is her choice how to handle the ramifications of it. If you remove her choice to handle the ramifications of it, then what else are you doing to help her?  Everyone above seems horrified at the idea of a man actually being responsible in some way (other than financially).

I was going to make a point about paternity testing in utero being dangerous via amniocentesis, but I just read about non-invasive prenatal paternity testing. Very interesting. 
Interesting. I only saw people horrified at the idea of undefendable criminal culpability. Do you have any other way for him to take responsibility? SHould he do bedrest for her?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: S209 on May 27, 2019, 02:36:43 PM
Bedrest and losing your job is a very normal ramification of pregnancy. If you agree that pregnancy is a normal outcome of intercourse and should be assumed, so should a woman being unable to take care of herself or her own legal obligations.

Right now, a woman has 100% of the responsibility for the pregnancy and it is her choice how to handle the ramifications of it. If you remove her choice to handle the ramifications of it, then what else are you doing to help her?  Everyone above seems horrified at the idea of a man actually being responsible in some way (other than financially).

I was going to make a point about paternity testing in utero being dangerous via amniocentesis, but I just read about non-invasive prenatal paternity testing. Very interesting.
Throughout this entire thread your argument seems predicated on justice and evening the social score somehow. But life is not so simple. While we may have a duty and obligation to help those who are suffering and in need, that also extends to a fetus to some level, although there is certainly gray area as it relates to a full fledged human, equally as complex as other great moral questions.

Saying that abortion should be legal (it depends what you mean when you say you are for legalization, but blanket abortion allowance even includes killing and causing pain to viable fetuses) because it somehow gives a woman equal footing, and that a man cannot have an opinion because he does not have to live through it, is not valid logically or legally. No judge or legislator is required to live through the exact circumstances as those to whom the laws are applied, they need merely to reach a reasonable, logical, impartial, cerebral conclusion.

Women suffering is bad. Fetus killing is bad. Both of these statements can be true at once. Men can (should?) shoulder more of the burden of child bearing and rearing, despite the fact that biology dictates otherwise. That in no way condones using whatever means necessary to try to even the score.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 27, 2019, 04:55:44 PM
Interesting. I only saw people horrified at the idea of undefendable criminal culpability. Do you have any other way for him to take responsibility? SHould he do bedrest for her?

No, but he could be mandated to provide a certain number of community service hours to her based on her condition. An easier pregnancy with no bedrest - minimal. A harder pregnancy with full bedrest would require additional hours.

Throughout this entire thread your argument seems predicated on justice and evening the social score somehow. But life is not so simple. While we may have a duty and obligation to help those who are suffering and in need, that also extends to a fetus to some level, although there is certainly gray area as it relates to a full fledged human, equally as complex as other great moral questions.

Saying that abortion should be legal (it depends what you mean when you say you are for legalization, but blanket abortion allowance even includes killing and causing pain to viable fetuses) because it somehow gives a woman equal footing, and that a man cannot have an opinion because he does not have to live through it, is not valid logically or legally. No judge or legislator is required to live through the exact circumstances as those to whom the laws are applied, they need merely to reach a reasonable, logical, impartial, cerebral conclusion.

Women suffering is bad. Fetus killing is bad. Both of these statements can be true at once. Men can (should?) shoulder more of the burden of child bearing and rearing, despite the fact that biology dictates otherwise. That in no way condones using whatever means necessary to try to even the score.

While abortion is legal, it makes sense for a woman to take full responsibility for the pregnancy and have a man be responsible from the birth on because abortion is currently viewed as a woman's medical procedure based on her health/welfare etc. Once that option is taken from her, then a man should be responsible at an earlier point as it no longer is about her health anymore but now about the fetus and the fetus is half his responsibility.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 27, 2019, 06:26:46 PM
While abortion is legal, it makes sense for a woman to take full responsibility for the pregnancy and have a man be responsible from the birth on because abortion is currently viewed as a woman's medical procedure based on her health/welfare etc. Once that option is taken from her, then a man should be responsible at an earlier point as it no longer is about her health anymore but now about the fetus and the fetus is half his responsibility.
I think that's valid, you just have to come up with rational ways to make men responsible, making it criminal to have an unwanted pregnancy is just not a viable solution to the problem.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 27, 2019, 07:37:19 PM
No, but he could be mandated to provide a certain number of community service hours to her based on her condition. An easier pregnancy with no bedrest - minimal. A harder pregnancy with full bedrest would require additional hours.

While abortion is legal, it makes sense for a woman to take full responsibility for the pregnancy and have a man be responsible from the birth on because abortion is currently viewed as a woman's medical procedure based on her health/welfare etc. Once that option is taken from her, then a man should be responsible at an earlier point as it no longer is about her health anymore but now about the fetus and the fetus is half his responsibility.



I have a feeling that 95 % or more of women who are not in a meaningful relationship would turn down these community service hours. You are grasping at air to think of something that really makes very little sense.

Don't forget that she had the option to prevent the pregnancy unilaterally.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 27, 2019, 08:49:52 PM
The idea that a law or two can address the natural inbalance in the consequences of sex is straight out of a dystopian sci-fi story.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ckmk47 on May 27, 2019, 11:41:54 PM
I don't know if this messes with anyone's argument, or is irrelevant, but I dislike that in the current situation, a woman gets to "choose" unilaterally.  If the fetus's father wants the baby he has no legal way of stopping the mother from aborting it.
I presume he can negotiate with her to keep it, but he has no legal rights.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 28, 2019, 06:23:34 AM
I don't know if this messes with anyone's argument, or is irrelevant, but I dislike that in the current situation, a woman gets to "choose" unilaterally.  If the fetus's father wants the baby he has no legal way of stopping the mother from aborting it.
I presume he can negotiate with her to keep it, but he has no legal rights.
I agree, if both people agreed to have sex then both people should have to sign off on the abortion (excluding cases where the mother's health is at risk.)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 28, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
 
I agree, if both people agreed to have sex then both people should have to sign off on the abortion (excluding cases where the mother's health is at risk.)
well is there a signed affidavit? ;D
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 28, 2019, 11:47:55 AM
well is there a signed affidavit?
Yes, federal law should require signing affidavits before engaging in consensual sex.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 28, 2019, 02:44:15 PM
Yes, federal law should require signing affidavits before engaging in consensual sex.

We can give it a name. Maybe "marriage"? (And yes, I know marital rape is a thing)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on May 28, 2019, 06:42:03 PM
We can give it a name. Maybe "marriage"? (And yes, I know marital rape is a thing)
Just to be clear here, my previous post was tongue in cheek.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on May 28, 2019, 07:10:18 PM
Just to be clear here, my previous post was tongue in cheek.

I know. But others had essentially suggested the same thing seriously up-thread
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Hirshthg on May 28, 2019, 09:07:38 PM
2. "A fetus isn't a baby": Well, that's right, a fetus isn't a baby. Just the same way a baby isn't a child and a child isn't a teenager and a teenager isn't an adult. They're all at different developmental stages. But ultimately, they are all human. It's a human fetus. In fact, if you can handle it- take a look at these (http://https://www.liveaction.org/news/photos-two-babies-miscarried-7-8-weeks-share-truth-abortion/) first trimester images and tell me that this isn't a human.

3. The rape/incest case: As horrible and as tragic as these cases are, getting an abortion doesn't take away the rape. Furthermore, the unborn child isn't guilty of the crimes of his father. How can we justify taking someone's innocent life for a crime he didn't commit?

On the scientific front things seem clear. A fetus is it's own human being, with it's own distinct set of DNA.
But things get murkier- what do we say to those babies being born into poverty, into immature and even neglectful families, those born with conditions that will make their life a struggle? What about those babies who are simply unwanted? Are they better off dead?

Great conversation. Here is an additional $0.02.

I don't think the abortion question should be tied to the rape question, or the danger to the mother, as follows.

We have a law against murder, and against vigilantism. May a rape victim murder their assailant? No, but most states have diminished culpability for extreme emotional disturbance or other forms of distress. The victim's pain doesn't make the murder legal, but it recognizes that its hard to blame the victim completely.

What if the assailant posses a active threat to the victim? The victim can use a justification defense of self defense, which is a complete exception to the laws against murder. its not only an exception to murder, but a general defense to any and all crimes.

So the question of whether a viable fetus is a human life deserving of equal protection (lets talk about 9 months, and past due) shouldn't be tied to the questions of saving the mother's life or rape. If the mother's life is in danger, she can kill all of her children, even if they are 15 years old, or 50 years old. If the mother really hates her 2 year old toddler because the dad raped her and she kills the kid, its murder. But maybe you can understand the mother and give her less jail time. These questions have nothing to do with general question of where life starts.

Doctors, medical boards, governments, and rabbis need to determine when life ends (its not always an easy question) and when life begins. No one asks if a rapist's life ends earlier because he hate him. We develop objective formulas for when lives are over. (brain waves, heart beats, viability, or other formulas.) Doctors, medical boards, governments, and rabbis also need to determine when life begins, generally. "feelings" of who is a person, is not how we usually determine these types of questions.

Remember when some people didn't feel blacks were people for purposes of constitutional rights or murder laws? These questions should not be decided by personal feelings, but by the civilized society.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 29, 2019, 01:37:04 AM
Great conversation. Here is an additional $0.02.

I don't think the abortion question should be tied to the rape question, or the danger to the mother, as follows.

We have a law against murder, and against vigilantism. May a rape victim murder their assailant? No, but most states have diminished culpability for extreme emotional disturbance or other forms of distress. The victim's pain doesn't make the murder legal, but it recognizes that its hard to blame the victim completely.

What if the assailant posses a active threat to the victim? The victim can use a justification defense of self defense, which is a complete exception to the laws against murder. its not only an exception to murder, but a general defense to any and all crimes.

So the question of whether a viable fetus is a human life deserving of equal protection (lets talk about 9 months, and past due) shouldn't be tied to the questions of saving the mother's life or rape. If the mother's life is in danger, she can kill all of her children, even if they are 15 years old, or 50 years old. If the mother really hates her 2 year old toddler because the dad raped her and she kills the kid, its murder. But maybe you can understand the mother and give her less jail time. These questions have nothing to do with general question of where life starts.

Doctors, medical boards, governments, and rabbis need to determine when life ends (its not always an easy question) and when life begins. No one asks if a rapist's life ends earlier because he hate him. We develop objective formulas for when lives are over. (brain waves, heart beats, viability, or other formulas.) Doctors, medical boards, governments, and rabbis also need to determine when life begins, generally. "feelings" of who is a person, is not how we usually determine these types of questions.

Remember when some people didn't feel blacks were people for purposes of constitutional rights or murder laws? These questions should not be decided by personal feelings, but by the civilized society.

Well said
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 06:32:41 AM
I think we can all agree, it is virtually impossible to make men "responsible" for the pregnancies they cause in just about any way. Which is why it is so important that this stay a woman's decision because it doesn't really affect men.

I want to also point out that many of you are horrified at the prospect of proving that the pregnancy he caused was discussed and that the woman acknowledged the risk of an unplanned pregnancy is basically what many victims of assault go through. It is very hard to prove rape and many people don't even report it.

A fetus is also different from a child because it is a parasite until viability. Once artificial wombs are a real thing and you can transplant fetuses from a woman into an aritificial womb, there is a much stronger argument for forcing a transplant.

There are many long term minor and major health risks from pregnancy even if they aren't life threatening. Every pregnancy comes with a risk of maternal death in addition to many lifelong health conditions that are often triggered or worsened by pregnancy. The health risks may not be immediately dangerous to life and health but that doesn't mean they don't exist. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 31, 2019, 08:25:20 AM
I think we can all agree, it is virtually impossible to make men "responsible" for the pregnancies they cause in just about any way. Which is why it is so important that this stay a woman's decision because it doesn't really affect men.

I want to also point out that many of you are horrified at the prospect of proving that the pregnancy he caused was discussed and that the woman acknowledged the risk of an unplanned pregnancy is basically what many victims of assault go through. It is very hard to prove rape and many people don't even report it.

A fetus is also different from a child because it is a parasite until viability. Once artificial wombs are a real thing and you can transplant fetuses from a woman into an aritificial womb, there is a much stronger argument for forcing a transplant.

There are many long term minor and major health risks from pregnancy even if they aren't life threatening. Every pregnancy comes with a risk of maternal death in addition to many lifelong health conditions that are often triggered or worsened by pregnancy. The health risks may not be immediately dangerous to life and health but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Boom.  Explains a lot.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 08:30:42 AM
Boom.  Explains a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean. Just because a fetus meets the definition of a parasite doesn't mean it can't be a loved and wanted fetus. Nor does it mean it doesn't have value. But it does mean that it depends on its host (AKA its mother) to provide all its nutrients at the expense to the mother. It is very different from a living child who can survive on its own. Nuance is very important in the discussion of abortions. If you assign a fetus the same rights as its mother you are essentially denying the mother her rights and you would never abort to save the life of the mother.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 31, 2019, 08:38:45 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. Just because a fetus meets the definition of a parasite doesn't mean it can't be a loved and wanted fetus. Nor does it mean it doesn't have value. But it does mean that it depends on its host (AKA its mother) to provide all its nutrients at the expense to the mother. It is very different from a living child who can survive on its own. Nuance is very important in the discussion of abortions. If you assign a fetus the same rights as its mother you are essentially denying the mother her rights and you would never abort to save the life of the mother.
just wondering if you have kids...
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 31, 2019, 08:43:48 AM
I'm not sure what you mean. Just because a fetus meets the definition of a parasite doesn't mean it can't be a loved and wanted fetus. Nor does it mean it doesn't have value. But it does mean that it depends on its host (AKA its mother) to provide all its nutrients at the expense to the mother. It is very different from a living child who can survive on its own. Nuance is very important in the discussion of abortions. If you assign a fetus the same rights as its mother you are essentially denying the mother her rights and you would never abort to save the life of the mother.
No one here has assigned the fetus the same rights as it's mother.  No one until now referred to it as a parasite.  That in my eyes is morally reprehensible and I doubt I can find much common ground with someone who thinks so.

Thought experiment.  A woman is stuck alone in the desert with her 10 day old baby.  She is the babies only source of sustenance,  only hope of survival.  She has enough food and water to make it out of the desert but carrying and feeding her baby will make her journey much much more difficult. Carrying her baby through the desert causes her intense pain.
Can she kill the baby?
 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: gingyguy on May 31, 2019, 08:51:14 AM
No one here has assigned the fetus the same rights as it's mother.  No one until now referred to it as a parasite.  That in my eyes is morally reprehensible and I doubt I can find much common ground with someone who thinks so.
+1

Thought experiment.  A woman is stuck alone in the desert with her 10 day old baby.  She is the babies only source of sustenance,  only hope of survival.  She has enough food and water to make it out of the desert but carrying and feeding her baby will make her journey much much more difficult. Carrying her baby through the desert causes her intense pain.
Can she kill the baby?
 
no need to go to such an extreme example. lets find a woman that cant afford to feed her baby  and working extra hours causes her much hardship. can she kill her baby?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 09:07:05 AM
just wondering if you have kids...

Yes, I have 4 wonderful children. I'm curious if you've ever been pregnant and experienced health issues (major or minor) from carrying a pregnancy to full term. I have.

No one here has assigned the fetus the same rights as it's mother.  No one until now referred to it as a parasite.  That in my eyes is morally reprehensible and I doubt I can find much common ground with someone who thinks so.

Thought experiment.  A woman is stuck alone in the desert with her 10 day old baby.  She is the babies only source of sustenance,  only hope of survival.  She has enough food and water to make it out of the desert but carrying and feeding her baby will make her journey much much more difficult. Carrying her baby through the desert causes her intense pain.
Can she kill the baby?
 

Many of these new abortion laws do put the rights of the fetus in front of the rights of the mother, especially ones that have no exemptions for rape or incest. Restricting abortions before viability means that the fetus has the right to forces its mother to provide for it regardless of the effect to herself.  You may not view it that way, but that is basically what it comes down to.

A mother who has a living child and doesn't or cannot take care of it can give the baby away for someone else to care for. It is not the same thing. We can talk about fetus transplants when artificial wombs are a realistic option.

I know you are offended by the term parasite, and while parasites are usually different species, it affects the mom in the same way. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on May 31, 2019, 09:24:45 AM
Yes, I have 4 wonderful children. I'm curious if you've ever been pregnant and experienced health issues (major or minor) from carrying a pregnancy to full term. I have.

Many of these new abortion laws do put the rights of the fetus in front of the rights of the mother, especially ones that have no exemptions for rape or incest. Restricting abortions before viability means that the fetus has the right to forces its mother to provide for it regardless of the effect to herself.  You may not view it that way, but that is basically what it comes down to.

A mother who has a living child and doesn't or cannot take care of it can give the baby away for someone else to care for. It is not the same thing. We can talk about fetus transplants when artificial wombs are a realistic option.

I know you are offended by the term parasite, and while parasites are usually different species, it affects the mom in the same way.

I have never been pregnant.  None of the laws I am aware of lack an exception for the life of the mother.  So no one puts the fetus' right to LIVE before the mothers right to LIVE.  What they do do is put the fetus' right to live before it's mother right to a pain-free life. 

I specifically posited a scenario where there is no one besides the mother who can care for the baby.  Can she kill the baby?

I was not offended by the term parasite but I think it helps put your point of view in context.  If you don't mind answering a  personal question, do you believe in G-d?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Definitions on May 31, 2019, 09:37:00 AM
A mother who has a living child and doesn't or cannot take care of it can give the baby away for someone else to care for. It is not the same thing. We can talk about fetus transplants when artificial wombs are a realistic option.
I'm having a hard time understanding this viability business.

If you use viability as a standard of whether something is human. Shouldn't it work to define the beginning and automatically the end too?

By the case of the desert she can't give the baby away. And therefore according to your standards that viability is what determines whether something is human. The child isn't either viable (survivable) without the adult.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 31, 2019, 10:00:56 AM
Nuance is very important in the discussion of abortions.
LOL. This is like AOC telling Trump to be nuanced.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 31, 2019, 10:02:45 AM
Restricting abortions before viability
One second, you are only discussing before viability?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 10:30:38 AM
I have never been pregnant.  None of the laws I am aware of lack an exception for the life of the mother.  So no one puts the fetus' right to LIVE before the mothers right to LIVE.  What they do do is put the fetus' right to live before it's mother right to a pain-free life. 

I specifically posited a scenario where there is no one besides the mother who can care for the baby.  Can she kill the baby?

I was not offended by the term parasite but I think it helps put your point of view in context.  If you don't mind answering a  personal question, do you believe in G-d?

Some of the laws do not allow exemptions for rape or incest or mental health and only allow for situations where the life of the mother is in immediate danger with the burden of proof on medical professional.   If a woman dies in childbirth for a pregnancy she wanted to terminate but wasn't determined to be "bad enough to terminate", who is liable? 

I think the better question about your desert question is if there is only enough food for one of them (the mother or the baby), who gets the food?  Questions about living children are very different from fetuses and should be unless you think they are equivalent. If they are equivalent, you would never

I do believe in G-d and I am fully observant. I am not worried about abortions for me. I have never been in a situation where I felt desperate for an abortion. I have family support, the financial means to take care of a baby and even my worst most debilitating pregnancy, where I was basically bedridden for a large chunk of it, was just hard for me and meant that I couldn't take care of my kids but I had plenty of people who could. I am definitely blessed.   

But I have also come in contact with people in sad, desperate situations, people who do need help and choose abortions for various reasons. They may not be reasons that I would choose. That is why I take the position that we should look at decreasing unwanted pregnancies rather than squeezing the people who are choosing abortions. I don't think anyone wants to have an abortion even when they choose one.   

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 10:31:25 AM
One second, you are only discussing before viability?

Yes. I think discussions about abortions after viability are way more complicated. But 6 weeks is not the point of viability.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 10:35:54 AM
I'm having a hard time understanding this viability business.

If you use viability as a standard of whether something is human. Shouldn't it work to define the beginning and automatically the end too?

By the case of the desert she can't give the baby away. And therefore according to your standards that viability is what determines whether something is human. The child isn't either viable (survivable) without the adult.

Viability determines when the fetus turns into a child and can survive without the dependence of its host. All babies and young children need help to survive but it can be done by many people. Viability doesn't determine when someone is human. A fetus is human at conception. It is not a child at conception.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 31, 2019, 11:16:49 AM
Yes. I think discussions about abortions after viability are way more complicated. But 6 weeks is not the point of viability.
I would reword that to say that it is a different discussion after it is considered to be its own living entity. My understanding now is that this is essentially your opinion, which I did not understand until now and I don't think that others here did either.
Viability determines when the fetus turns into a child and can survive without the dependence of its host. All babies and young children need help to survive but it can be done by many people. Viability doesn't determine when someone is human. A fetus is human at conception. It is not a child at conception.
This is already an opinion which is debatable. Either way, you seem to be agreeing that once it is considered to be its own living entity then all of the responsibility questions and the like are no longer applicable. In that case, you should be able to at least understand the opinions of those who feel that they cannot be taken into consideration earlier than what you feel as being simply because they feel that it is considered to be its own entity earlier than you do. With that said you should understand why all of the arguments you have made here seem to be falling on deaf ears. They are not accepting your premise. The rest is the logical argument which you seem to be agreeing to.
BTW, I don't understand your difference between a human and a child.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: ckmk47 on May 31, 2019, 12:32:49 PM

Many of these new abortion laws do put the rights of the fetus in front of the rights of the mother, especially ones that have no exemptions for rape or incest.
The product of rape or incest is not guilty of the crime of its father.  So, sad as the situation is for the  mother, the issue of abortion remains the same.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 31, 2019, 12:58:32 PM
Which is why it is so important that this stay a woman's decision because it doesn't really affect men.

A fetus is also different from a child because it is a parasite until viability.
Restricting abortions before viability means that the fetus has the right to force its mother to provide for it regardless of the effect to herself.  You may not view it that way, but that is basically what it comes down to.


I do believe in G-d and I am fully observant.   

But I have also come in contact with people in sad, desperate situations, people who do need help and choose abortions for various reasons. They may not be reasons that I would choose. That is why I take the position that we should look at decreasing unwanted pregnancies rather than squeezing the people who are choosing abortions. I don't think anyone wants to have an abortion even when they choose one.
A fetus is human at conception.
You can't have it both ways. If you are observant, you submit to halacha. R' Moshe, one of the greatest poskim in the last century, writes that abortion is murder for Jew and gentile alike. Most major poskim are of like opinion.

The fact that you came across sad situations where people choose abortion doesn't change anything. Unfortunately life can be difficult but we wont start changing the rules because of that.

Yes, we should very much hold people in contempt if they murder their very own baby because the fetus is a human as you correctly state. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chevron on May 31, 2019, 02:04:22 PM
Without reading it all,  im curious, do they need the father's consent to abort?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 02:27:03 PM
I would reword that to say that it is a different discussion after it is considered to be its own living entity. My understanding now is that this is essentially your opinion, which I did not understand until now and I don't think that others here did either.This is already an opinion which is debatable. Either way, you seem to be agreeing that once it is considered to be its own living entity then all of the responsibility questions and the like are no longer applicable. In that case, you should be able to at least understand the opinions of those who feel that they cannot be taken into consideration earlier than what you feel as being simply because they feel that it is considered to be its own entity earlier than you do. With that said you should understand why all of the arguments you have made here seem to be falling on deaf ears. They are not accepting your premise. The rest is the logical argument which you seem to be agreeing to.
BTW, I don't understand your difference between a human and a child.


The conversation changes past viability because you could make the argument that the child should be induced. But the reasons people have later term abortions are generally different than earlier. I think it is a very different conversation. Once you are past viability, there are different ethical questions that arise.

I don't understand your second point. Are you saying that people believe a fetus before viability is a fully functioning baby? If so, why not just induce women at 8 weeks and see if the baby survives? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

Human is the species. You are human as a fetus. Then you change into a human baby, human toddler, human child, human teenager, human adult. You are always human from the moment of conception. 

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 02:38:45 PM
You can't have it both ways. If you are observant, you submit to halacha. R' Moshe, one of the greatest poskim in the last century, writes that abortion is murder for Jew and gentile alike. Most major poskim are of like opinion.

The fact that you came across sad situations where people choose abortion doesn't change anything. Unfortunately life can be difficult but we wont start changing the rules because of that.

Yes, we should very much hold people in contempt if they murder their very own baby because the fetus is a human as you correctly state. 


Did you read the interview with Rabbi Tendler?  He talks about R'Moshe Feinstein wanting the government out of regulating ethics and morals.

You just seem to want to vilify women who are desperate. I want to fix the problems that lead them to be desperate to begin with.

You also seem to lack empathy for these women. Some of the women I know had heterim from their rabbi. But it is good to know that somehow I'm in the wrong for empathizing with these desperate women because you've decided their heter doesn't follow halacha somehow. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 31, 2019, 02:43:19 PM
But the reasons people have later term abortions are generally different than earlier. I think it is a very different conversation. Once you are past viability, there are different ethical questions that arise.
The different conversations amount to the same thing: Murder.

According to the Gutmacher Institute (as per Wikipedia), the three most common reasons to abort are:
74%   Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73%   Cannot afford a baby now
48%   Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems

According to that same study, the reasons for late abortions are:

71%   Woman did not recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48%   Woman had found it hard to make arrangements for an earlier abortion
33%   Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24%   Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

All ultra-selfish and grotesque reasons to murder.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 31, 2019, 02:50:52 PM
The conversation changes past viability because you could make the argument that the child should be induced. But the reasons people have later term abortions are generally different than earlier. I think it is a very different conversation. Once you are past viability, there are different ethical questions that arise.

I don't understand your second point. Are you saying that people believe a fetus before viability is a fully functioning baby? If so, why not just induce women at 8 weeks and see if the baby survives? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

Human is the species. You are human as a fetus. Then you change into a human baby, human toddler, human child, human teenager, human adult. You are always human from the moment of conception. 


My point is that you chose viability as a line between it having its own rights or not. If it has its own rights then it becomes a different conversation than what you have been saying in this thread. This line of viability is of your choosing. Others may draw this line elsewhere with the same ramifications as your line of viability.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 02:59:41 PM
My point is that you chose viability as a line between it having its own rights or not. If it has its own rights then it becomes a different conversation than what you have been saying in this thread. This line of viability is of your choosing. Others may draw this line elsewhere with the same ramifications as your line of viability.

Then you can also understand that other people put the line much later than the earliest viability for various reasons as well. I do think that largely, viability is a logical point to discuss because the fetus can survive on its own at that point even if it would benefit from further time inside the womb.  The way I view the various timelines (which people can disagree with, but I think makes sense):

1) Beginning of conception to the end of Plan B timing
2) Post Plan B to viability
3) Viability to birth

One that could be added between 1 and 2 is based on heartbeat detected.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 31, 2019, 03:01:19 PM
Did you read the interview with Rabbi Tendler?  He talks about R'Moshe Feinstein wanting the government out of regulating ethics and morals.
Irrelevant point. There is a big difference between Halacha and Hashkafah. R' Moshe did not say that abortion is muttar.
Regarding the Hashkafic point, there are many counter opinions. Regarding Halacha, the vast majority of poskim are very much against abortion.

You just seem to want to vilify women who are desperate. I want to fix the problems that lead them to be desperate to begin with.
I'm sorry that you see it that way. The truth is that I want to vilify killing babies. It so happens to be that the killers are women. Gender is irrelevant.
How about fixing the problem while circumventing murder?

You also seem to lack empathy for these women. Some of the women I know had heterim from their rabbi. But it is good to know that somehow I'm in the wrong for empathizing with these desperate women because you've decided their heter doesn't follow halacha somehow.
I hope they are approaching a world renowned posek for such a serious question rather than just a shul rabbi, but obviously that is much better than not asking anyone at all. 

That said, your empathy has nothing to do with halacha. You mention halacha tangentially only because I brought it up. Until now it was about your feelings on a women's right to choose. You feel for women and understand that they have a right to choose. You say we shouldn't squeeze people that want abortions.

The truth is, however, that we should vilify such people if that helps prevent the death of even one innocent human being.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on May 31, 2019, 03:09:36 PM
Irrelevant point. There is a big difference between Halacha and Hashkafah. R' Moshe did not say that abortion is muttar.
Regarding the Hashkafic point, there are many counter opinions. Regarding Halacha, the vast majority of poskim are very much against abortion.
I'm sorry that you see it that way. The truth is that I want to vilify killing babies. It so happens to be that the killers are women. Gender is irrelevant.
How about fixing the problem while circumventing murder?
I hope they are approaching a world renowned posek for such a serious question rather than just a shul rabbi, but obviously that is much better than not asking anyone at all. 

That said, your empathy has nothing to do with halacha. You mention halacha tangentially only because I brought it up. Until now it was about your feelings on a women's right to choose. You feel for women and understand that they have a right to choose. You say we shouldn't squeeze people that want abortions.

The truth is, however, that we should vilify such people if that helps prevent the death of even one innocent human being.

You brought up R' Moshe and then discount him? I'm really confused. 

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on May 31, 2019, 03:19:31 PM
Then you can also understand that other people put the line much later than the earliest viability for various reasons as well. I do think that largely, viability is a logical point to discuss because the fetus can survive on its own at that point even if it would benefit from further time inside the womb.  The way I view the various timelines (which people can disagree with, but I think makes sense):

1) Beginning of conception to the end of Plan B timing
2) Post Plan B to viability
3) Viability to birth

One that could be added between 1 and 2 is based on heartbeat detected.

Fetus's don't exist during the Plan B timing. Plan B works by blocking the sperm from accessing the egg. Sperm can live for about 5 days before either dying or fertilizing. Plan B is not an abortion as it would only work pre-fertilization. If you are going to try to talk about abortion regulations, it is a good idea to understand basic biology first. So while Plan B is only effective for 5 days, once the egg is fertilized (which could happen much faster depending on the woman's ovulation cycle), it is useless.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on May 31, 2019, 03:19:54 PM
You brought up R' Moshe and then discount him? I'm really confused.
Don't be.

I brought him up regarding halacha because he is the most important name (in my opinion) on halachic questions.
But it isn't just him...the majority of poskim concur.

Let's say we had a case where R' Moshe was in the minority. Take for example chalav stam.
The majority of poskim disagree with R' Moshe there, so I wouldn't keep stressing his view in such a conversation, despite his eminence. 

Next.

Hashkafah. First off, you can't equate halacha which is more defined with hashkafah which is less so.
That said, there are many opinions (such as, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R' Miller) that disagree. So hashkafically, R' Moshe was being cautious more so than others.

 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on May 31, 2019, 06:54:46 PM
Then you can also understand that other people put the line much later than the earliest viability for various reasons as well. I do think that largely, viability is a logical point to discuss because the fetus can survive on its own at that point even if it would benefit from further time inside the womb.  The way I view the various timelines (which people can disagree with, but I think makes sense):

1) Beginning of conception to the end of Plan B timing
2) Post Plan B to viability
3) Viability to birth

One that could be added between 1 and 2 is based on heartbeat detected.
You are so busy arguing that you don't even know what you are arguing about.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on June 01, 2019, 02:24:16 PM
Some of the laws do not allow exemptions for rape or incest or mental health and only allow for situations where the life of the mother is in immediate danger with the burden of proof on medical professional.   If a woman dies in childbirth for a pregnancy she wanted to terminate but wasn't determined to be "bad enough to terminate", who is liable? 
Maybe no one. If there was an indication that there was risk to her life if she carried to term then halacha and all US laws I am aware of are in agreement that termination is allowed.  Refer to medical malpractice law.  Completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote
I think the better question about your desert question is if there is only enough food for one of them (the mother or the baby), who gets the food?  Questions about living children are very different from fetuses and should be unless you think they are equivalent. If they are equivalent, you would never
Please answer the desert question as I presented it.
You think that is a better question because it avoids you having to take your position to an uncomfortable conclusion. You are arguing that the mothers right to a pain-free life takes precedence over the LIFE of the fetus because it "is a parasite" meaning it relies solely on her, at a cost to her, and no one else can take care of it.  A similar situation can occur with a new born baby or a 5 year old child for that matter.  According to the arguments you've put forward so far, I can see no reason why a woman, whose life is made miserable by her 5 year old child and there is no way for her to give him to someone else, wouldn't be morally justified in killing her child.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 01, 2019, 06:45:40 PM
Don't be.

I brought him up regarding halacha because he is the most important name (in my opinion) on halachic questions.
But it isn't just him...the majority of poskim concur.


Let's say we had a case where R' Moshe was in the minority. Take for example chalav stam.
The majority of poskim disagree with R' Moshe there, so I wouldn't keep stressing his view in such a conversation, despite his eminence. 

Next.

Hashkafah. First off, you can't equate halacha which is more defined with hashkafah which is less so.
That said, there are many opinions (such as, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R' Miller) that disagree. So hashkafically, R' Moshe was being cautious more so than others.
But you can agree that there are major poskim who definitely permit abortions in certain cases? I don't understand why you've taken it upon yourself to become the champion of R' Moshe's opinion and use that to say that anyone who has ever had an abortion is a cold-blooded murderer. If someone has a psak from the Tzitz Elierzer that it's muttar in their case to have an abortion you would tell that person that R' Moshe said it's assur so they shouldn't do it? I think we all agree here that every frum jew should be following halacha when it comes to abortions, you're just taking it a step further and giving a worldwide psak to everyone that they must follow R' Moshe because "most poskim" agree to him. Quite frankly, who are you? It's not your job to do so and it seems to me like you're just using that the promote your personal beliefs about abortion. Every person who has a situation where they feel they want to have an abortion should ask a qualified posek and follow whatever psak they get, it's not your job to tell people what that psak should or will be.

With regards to the hashkafik question, it boils down to what I mentioned upthread; a machlokes between R' Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe ( I'm sure there are others who have spoken about it as well) about how much we, as frum jews, should want the government involved in morals and the like.

All this other talk brought up here about viability or reasons for why people have an abortion are really irrelevant. AFAIK halacha only sees a difference before and after 40 days, someone can CMIIW. If you want to know what halacha says about abortions then you know the differing opinions about if and when it is ever muttar and if you want to know whether or not the government should be involved, we know the gedolim's views on that as well. All this back and forth in this thread is really pointless, feel free to hold like whichever of the gedolim on whichever topic you'd like but it seems like everyone is just trying to find halachic reasons to validate their own preconceived opinions on abortions.
/rant
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on June 01, 2019, 10:40:01 PM
But you can agree that there are major poskim who definitely permit abortions in certain cases? I don't understand why you've taken it upon yourself to become the champion of R' Moshe's opinion and use that to say that anyone who has ever had an abortion is a cold-blooded murderer. If someone has a psak from the Tzitz Elierzer that it's muttar in their case to have an abortion you would tell that person that R' Moshe said it's assur so they shouldn't do it? I think we all agree here that every frum jew should be following halacha when it comes to abortions, you're just taking it a step further and giving a worldwide psak to everyone that they must follow R' Moshe because "most poskim" agree to him.
LOL. You make it sound like it's a question of where to light Chanuka neiros.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 01, 2019, 11:03:53 PM
But you can agree that there are major poskim who definitely permit abortions in certain cases? I don't understand why you've taken it upon yourself to become the champion of R' Moshe's opinion and use that to say that anyone who has ever had an abortion is a cold-blooded murderer. If someone has a psak from the Tzitz Elierzer that it's muttar in their case to have an abortion you would tell that person that R' Moshe said it's assur so they shouldn't do it? I think we all agree here that every frum jew should be following halacha when it comes to abortions, you're just taking it a step further and giving a worldwide psak to everyone that they must follow R' Moshe because "most poskim" agree to him. Quite frankly, who are you? It's not your job to do so and it seems to me like you're just using that the promote your personal beliefs about abortion. Every person who has a situation where they feel they want to have an abortion should ask a qualified posek and follow whatever psak they get, it's not your job to tell people what that psak should or will be.

With regards to the hashkafik question, it boils down to what I mentioned upthread; a machlokes between R' Moshe and the Lubavitcher Rebbe ( I'm sure there are others who have spoken about it as well) about how much we, as frum jews, should want the government involved in morals and the like.

All this other talk brought up here about viability or reasons for why people have an abortion are really irrelevant. AFAIK halacha only sees a difference before and after 40 days, someone can CMIIW. If you want to know what halacha says about abortions then you know the differing opinions about if and when it is ever muttar and if you want to know whether or not the government should be involved, we know the gedolim's views on that as well. All this back and forth in this thread is really pointless, feel free to hold like whichever of the gedolim on whichever topic you'd like but it seems like everyone is just trying to find halachic reasons to validate their own preconceived opinions on abortions.
/rant
Every single posek agrees that standard abortion is murder.
Even in specific cases the majority insist that it is strictly forbidden.
So, yes Halacha views abortion as murder, despite your silly rant.

The fact is that your views of free rights etc. all stem from a liberal mindset which doesn't amount to anything.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 01, 2019, 11:40:08 PM
Every single posek agrees that standard abortion is murder.
Even in specific cases the majority insist that it is strictly forbidden.
So, yes Halacha views abortion as murder, despite your silly rant.

The fact is that your views of free rights etc. all stem from a liberal mindset which doesn't amount to anything.
I am totally convinced that your opinion is coming not from halacha but from your political positions.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 01, 2019, 11:53:27 PM
I am totally convinced that your opinion is coming not from halacha but from your political positions.
umm, the halacha is clear so I'm right regardless. The truth is actually the other way around. Many libs here spout all the "women's rights" foolishness, but when confronted with halacha go running to find someone to back them up. They ignore the vast majority of opinions which includes heavyweights like R' Moshe because they never really cared much in the first place. You strike me as belonging to that group.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yelped on June 02, 2019, 12:02:36 AM
umm, the halacha is clear so I'm right regardless. The truth is actually the other way around. Many libs here spout all the "women's rights" foolishness, but when confronted with halacha go running to find someone to back them up. They ignore the vast majority of opinions which includes heavyweights like R' Moshe because they never really cared much in the first place. You strike me as belonging to that group.
You didn't address what @aygart said, besides insulting him.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:17:39 AM
You didn't address what @aygart said, besides insulting him.
What political positions? Like the position of some clown on the radio? No, I couldn't care less.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yelped on June 02, 2019, 12:26:37 AM
What political positions? Like the position of some clown on the radio? No, I couldn't care less.
So maybe the clown is on TV or the internet.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:30:03 AM
So maybe the clown is on TV or the internet.
no & no
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:37:43 AM
umm, the halacha is clear so I'm right regardless.

As soon as you wrote this
While we recognize that she underwent a horrific, life-altering experience, we need to ignore that right now so that we don't destroy in innocent life.

I realized that you are clueless regarding practical halacha and that your statements here are not reflection of any such knowledge.. I have actually spoken with some very respected poskim and found that halacha l'maase is much more nuanced as it almost always is. I have been very studiously avoiding giving any opinion here specifically because of my discussions with these poskim and would not find this to be the proper forum for any discussion at all of the nuances including via PM.

You strike me as belonging to that group.
LOL. I think I will let my reputation here speak for itself about how totally laughable that statement is.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:49:26 AM
The conversation changes past viability because you could make the argument that the child should be induced. But the reasons people have later term abortions are generally different than earlier. I think it is a very different conversation. Once you are past viability, there are different ethical questions that arise.

I don't understand your second point. Are you saying that people believe a fetus before viability is a fully functioning baby? If so, why not just induce women at 8 weeks and see if the baby survives? Or am I misunderstanding your position?

Human is the species. You are human as a fetus. Then you change into a human baby, human toddler, human child, human teenager, human adult. You are always human from the moment of conception. 



A big question is at which point does it become its own living entity?
 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:50:32 AM
As soon as you wrote thisI realized that you are clueless regarding practical halacha and that your statements here are not reflection of any such knowledge.. I have actually spoken with some very respected poskim and found that halacha l'maase is much more nuanced as it almost always is. I have been very studiously avoiding giving any opinion here specifically because of my discussions with these poskim and would not find this to be the proper forum for any discussion at all of the nuances including via PM.
LOL. I think I will let my reputation here speak for itself about how totally laughable that statement is.
If you actually looked at what I was responding to there you would see that I highlighted some of the reasons presented for killing a baby which were ludicrous. Yes, we need to ignore such a person so they don't kill their baby. And by the way, most abortion cases are based on selfish reasons.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yelped on June 02, 2019, 12:53:00 AM
Keep on going... ::)
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:54:00 AM
If you actually looked at what I was responding to there you would see that I highlighted some of the reasons presented for killing a baby which were ludicrous. Yes, we need to ignore such a person so they don't kill their baby. And by the way, most abortion cases are based on selfish reasons.


That was not the only such statement you made and is just as wrong in the context you wrote it. Yes it is true that most are for selfish reasons.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 01:05:27 AM
That was not the only such statement you made and is just as wrong in the context you wrote it. Yes it is true that most are for selfish reasons.

So we should not ignore a mother that wants to kill her baby despite the fact that abortions are generally murder done for selfish reasons?

I'm sorry if you feel the word ignore is offensive to women, but it isn't about offending women. It's about offending murderers.   
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: yelped on June 02, 2019, 01:06:17 AM
Just saying, you're not R'Avigdor Miller.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 01:09:31 AM
LOL. You make it sound like it's a question of where to light Chanuka neiros.
+100
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 01:14:14 AM
So we should not ignore a mother that wants to kill her baby despite the fact that abortions are generally murder done for selfish reasons?

I'm sorry if you feel the word ignore is offensive to women, but it isn't about offending women. It's about offending murderers.   
Why does this that they are generally done for selfish reasons mean that anyone should be ignored after having gone through a horrific life-altering experience?

Offensive to women? You need to take a deep breath. You are sounding more and more ridiculous as you go along. Some of these things are just further illustration how you are twisting the torah to meet your views and not the other way around.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 01:16:14 AM
LOL. You make it sound like it's a question of where to light Chanuka neiros.
Just the opposite. It is because it involves so many far ranging ramifications that much more nuance is required.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 01:19:45 AM
Why does this that they are generally done for selfish reasons mean that anyone should be ignored after having gone through a horrific life-altering experience?

Offensive to women? You need to take a deep breath. You are sounding more and more ridiculous as you go along. Some of these things are just further illustration how you are twisting the torah to meet your views and not the other way around.
OMG. Now I see what's eating you. You were offended at the notion that a woman should be ignored when she wants to kill her baby considering everything she went through.

If that's what it is, then argument accepted. There may be more effective ways to tackle things than ignoring. I was simply stressing my point.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 01:25:13 AM
OMG. Now I see what's eating you. You were offended at the notion that a woman should be ignored when she wants to kill her baby considering everything she went through.

If that's what it is, then argument accepted. There may be more effective ways to tackle things than ignoring. I was simply stressing my point.
This is going straight over your head, or maybe it is hitting you in the face and you are just ignoring it. It seems you are clueless of practical halacha.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on June 02, 2019, 01:39:09 AM
Just the opposite. It is because it involves so many far ranging ramifications that much more nuance is required.
That was my point.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 01:40:58 AM
That was my point.
Okay. Then my understan ding is that you would be in agreement with @mmgfarb
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on June 02, 2019, 01:53:46 AM
Okay. Then my understan ding is that you would be in agreement with @mmgfarb
I don't think that every posek who gives a psak on such a question should be relied on unless he is in a league like R' Moshe or he is your rebbi muvhak. We find that with a question like shiurim, R Chaim Naeh is considered an opinion against the Chazon Ish, while I don't think most people would consider his opinion against the Chazon Ish if it was a question of eishes ish. That was my main contention.
Also, the idea that "everyone should mind their own business" when you are discussing potential murder, I didn't think is very applicable.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 04:09:56 AM
The fact is that your views of free rights etc. all stem from a liberal mindset which doesn't amount to anything.
Actually, my views about free rights come from a conservative/libertarian mindset but regardless, telling someone that theirs views don't amount to anything because you think that you disagree with that person is a great way to have a meaningful debate. I think we can all tell at this point though that a meaningful nuanced debate is not your intention here.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 04:11:28 AM
Also, the idea that "everyone should mind their own business" when you are discussing potential murder, I didn't think is very applicable.
I never said that, I just took exception to what I felt was someone twisting halacha into something that wasn't Torah in order to fit their political views.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 04:18:52 AM
I don't think that every posek who gives a psak on such a question should be relied on unless he is in a league like R' Moshe or he is your rebbi muvhak. We find that with a question like shiurim, R Chaim Naeh is considered an opinion against the Chazon Ish, while I don't think most people would consider his opinion against the Chazon Ish if it was a question of eishes ish. That was my main contention.
That is a discussion that is really beyond the scope of this forum.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on June 02, 2019, 08:52:56 AM
I never said that, I just took exception to what I felt was someone twisting halacha into something that wasn't Torah in order to fit their political views.
If that was your point, then we are in agreement.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: chinagel on June 02, 2019, 09:23:04 AM
That is a discussion that is really beyond the scope of this forum.
Pretty much sums up this thread.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 09:38:09 AM


Every single posek agrees that standard abortion is murder.

This is not so simple even though all agree that abortion for convenience is forbidden.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 09:40:52 AM



Even in specific cases the majority insist that it is strictly forbidden.

This is vague as to what you consider to be specific cases, but if your intent here is that most insist that it is forbidden from conception no matter the circumstances then please bring the sources for this assertion.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 09:41:44 AM
Pretty much sums up this thread.
Lol, wouldn't that sum up all of JS?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 11:17:36 AM
Actually, my views about free rights come from a conservative/libertarian mindset
Proving my point.

but regardless, telling someone that theirs views don't amount to anything because you think that you disagree with that person is a great way to have a meaningful debate. I think we can all tell at this point though that a meaningful nuanced debate is not your intention here.

Actually it was a larger idea. Some things fit much better in the realm of personal opinion than others. For example. your personal view on taxation amounts to more than your personal opinion on carrying on Shabbos or the obligation of a married woman to cover her hair.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 11:19:05 AM
This is not so simple even though all agree that abortion for convenience is forbidden.
that's what the vast majority of abortions are.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 11:20:38 AM
This is vague as to what you consider to be specific cases, but if your intent here is that most insist that it is forbidden from conception no matter the circumstances then please bring the sources for this assertion.
Not my point. I'm not convinced that you are as well versed as you consider yourself to be.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 11:26:09 AM
That is a discussion that is really beyond the scope of this forum.
Perhaps but his point is well taken and should be emphasized throughout any such discussion.

World renown Halachic heavyweights amount to much more than just any dissenting view. And that's even without accounting
for the majority opinion.

I know this can turn into a whole discussion about who's who which I definitely want to avoid, but the idea is 100% true.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 11:48:01 AM
Proving my point.
Contradict yourself much?
Title: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 11:52:31 AM
I'm not convinced that you are as well versed as you consider yourself to be.
I think @aygart has a very good track record of knowing what he's talking about here, especially when it comes to halacha. You on the other hand have no such record and have done nothing in this thread to convince anyone that you have a very good grasp of the degree of nuance involved here and in most complicated halachic issues.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 11:57:02 AM
that's what the vast majority of abortions are.
This applies to you as well
You are so busy arguing that you don't even know what you are arguing about.
Forbidden does not equal murder.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 11:58:38 AM
Not my point. I'm not convinced that you are as well versed as you consider yourself to be.
That would make sense considering that you do not know how well versed i consider myself to be nor how well versed i actually am.

You have yet to bring a source for your assertion that the majority are as strict as you are making it.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:07:01 PM
This applies to you as wellForbidden does not equal murder.
what are you talking about?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:08:16 PM
That would make sense considering that you do not know how well versed i consider myself to be nor how well versed i actually am.

You have yet to bring a source for your assertion that the majority are as strict as you are making it.
a simple google search will provide you with ample proof.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:08:25 PM
what are you talking about?
Maybe you should take a step back and see exactly what you are arguing about.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:08:42 PM
I think @aygart has a very good track record of knowing what he's talking about here, especially when it comes to halacha. You on the other hand have no such record and have done nothing in this thread to convince anyone that you have a very good grasp of the degree of nuance involved here and in most complicated halachic issues.
whatever
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:09:38 PM
a simple google search will provide you with ample proof.
Nope. It actually shows otherwise at least with the way you are presenting the opinion of R Moshe.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:09:49 PM
Maybe you should take a step back and see exactly what you are arguing about.
I've been advancing my point throughout this thread so it isn't ambiguous at all.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:11:45 PM
Nope. It actually shows otherwise at least with the way you are presenting the opinion of R Moshe.
Wrong. His opinion is clear in his writings, which I made reference to above. As far as learning about how severe the majority opinion views almost all abortions, Google can enlighten you
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:11:54 PM
I've been advancing my point throughout this thread so it isn't ambiguous at all.
I am not sure that you are understanding what it is you are arguing against.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:13:11 PM


I am pretty sure that you are not understanding what it is you are arguing against.
Ftfm

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:15:31 PM
whatever
That is something i can agree with you about.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:18:01 PM
Wrong. His opinion is clear in his writings, which I made reference to above. As far as learning about how severe the majority opinion views almost all abortions, Google can enlighten you
Just to be clear,are there any cases other than sakonas nefoshos where you are feeling abortions can be permitted any time after conception?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:22:06 PM
I am not sure that you are understanding what it is you are arguing against.
Mostly the liberal outlook of many on this thread which colors their opinion even on issues that are primarily halachic.

Furthermore, the view that any minority opinion carries equal weight against a majority opinion, particularly when world renown
halachic heavyweights are on the other side.

That is actually indicative of someone pushing a liberal agenda, not someone serious about what the Torah has to say on the topic.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:28:21 PM
Mostly the liberal outlook of many on this thread which colors their opinion even on issues that are primarily halachic.

Furthermore, the view that any minority opinion carries equal weight against a majority opinion, particularly when world renown
halachic heavyweights are on the other side.

That is actually indicative of someone pushing a liberal agenda, not someone serious about what the Torah has to say on the topic.
So i am right. Okay. This from someone quitting Google as a source.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 12:39:53 PM
So i am right. Okay. This from someone quitting Google as a source.
Happy to reiterate. I said if you want confirmation about what the majority opinion is, which includes the heavy weight poskim, feel free to google. 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 12:42:08 PM
Happy to reiterate. I said if you want confirmation about what the majority opinion is, which includes the heavy weight poskim, feel free to google.
To repeat the question you have been ignoring.
Just to be clear,are there any cases other than sakonas nefoshos where you are feeling abortions can be permitted any time after conception?
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 02, 2019, 12:46:14 PM
whatever
Lol, well formulated.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 02, 2019, 01:04:41 PM
To repeat the question you have been ignoring.
I've been ignoring, because unlike you I'm wary of getting into the fine details of such a sensitive and weighty issue on a public forum. The fact that it doesn't bother you is not my fault. That said, I'm happy to keep on stating that in general abortion is murder as per the psak of leading Poskim and that I'm overjoyed that some states are finally taking a serious stand against it.



 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: aygart on June 02, 2019, 02:20:54 PM
I've been ignoring, because unlike you I'm wary of getting into the fine details of such a sensitive and weighty issue on a public forum. The fact that it doesn't bother you is not my fault. That said, I'm happy to keep on stating that in general abortion is murder as per the psak of leading Poskim and that I'm overjoyed that some states are finally taking a serious stand against it.



 

Well okay then....

I guess its a good thing that there are those who care about the actual ramifications of things over taking a stand. This isn't the first time we have disagreed over that.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on June 03, 2019, 06:10:36 AM
Fetus's don't exist during the Plan B timing. Plan B works by blocking the sperm from accessing the egg. Sperm can live for about 5 days before either dying or fertilizing. Plan B is not an abortion as it would only work pre-fertilization. If you are going to try to talk about abortion regulations, it is a good idea to understand basic biology first. So while Plan B is only effective for 5 days, once the egg is fertilized (which could happen much faster depending on the woman's ovulation cycle), it is useless.

I understand the biology of Plan B. Do you understand that there are pro-life groups who are against Plan B?  It is definitely part of the conversation. Perhaps I should have said "from sperm deposit to the end of Plan B timing."

You are so busy arguing that you don't even know what you are arguing about.

I don't understand what you mean. I think abortions should be safe and legal and we should regulate other ways to reduce the need for abortions. I think the conversation switches once a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, although I still think that it should be left to the woman and her doctor regarding medical ethics rather than law. The timelines that I think are relevant are those I listed, although viability is not really defined well.

Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on June 03, 2019, 07:03:50 AM
I understand the biology of Plan B. Do you understand that there are pro-life groups who are against Plan B?  It is definitely part of the conversation. Perhaps I should have said "from sperm deposit to the end of Plan B timing."

I don't understand what you mean. I think abortions should be safe and legal and we should regulate other ways to reduce the need for abortions. I think the conversation switches once a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, although I still think that it should be left to the woman and her doctor regarding medical ethics rather than law. The timelines that I think are relevant are those I listed, although viability is not really defined well.
If people are against Plan B, than this has nothing to do with life. Pro lifers love to trumpet that the fetus is a   biologically distinct entity, which is patently false during so called "Plan B timing".
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 03, 2019, 07:11:29 AM
I understand the biology of Plan B. Do you understand that there are pro-life groups who are against Plan B?  It is definitely part of the conversation. Perhaps I should have said "from sperm deposit to the end of Plan B timing."
Being anti Plan B is a purely Christian idea.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: zh cohen on June 03, 2019, 08:05:46 AM
Being anti Plan B is a purely Christian idea.

Huh? The idea that sex and procreation should not be disassociated is definitely a Jewish idea.

Unless you meant to say that considering Plan B as abortion is a Christian idea.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on June 03, 2019, 08:15:38 AM
If people are against Plan B, than this has nothing to do with life. Pro lifers love to trumpet that the fetus is a   biologically distinct entity, which is patently false during so called "Plan B timing".
Being anti Plan B is a purely Christian idea.

Yes but so much of the anti-abortion lobby is purely Christian. Catholics have zero tolerance for abortion even for saving the life of the mother. No one is trying to regulate based on halacha, nor should we be advocating for that.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on June 03, 2019, 08:49:05 AM

One last thing.  in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.

"A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery."

This is a staple of abortionists attempts to justify abortion.  Unfortunately doctors cannot know which babies will make it and which won't. This recent news article shows what a lie it is.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/2019/05/29/worlds-smallest-baby-goes-home-now-weighs-more-than-5-pounds/1276867001/

She was born at 23 weeks at 8.6 oz which is significantly less that 300g. 

Also in the article:
"It's pretty incredible that baby Seybie is thriving. A 2015 report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that premature babies born at 23 weeks had a survival rate of 33%."

 survival rate of 33% ≠ can not live after delivery

It is also interesting to note that Seybie was delivered early because her mother was suffering from the very condition Dr. Gunter used in her example for when an abortion is necessary to save the mothers life.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on June 03, 2019, 08:55:02 AM
Yes but so much of the anti-abortion lobby is purely Christian. Catholics have zero tolerance for abortion even for saving the life of the mother. No one is trying to regulate based on halacha, nor should we be advocating for that.

Is this true? It doesn't seem so clear cut.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on June 03, 2019, 08:55:32 AM
Huh? The idea that sex and procreation should not be disassociated is definitely a Jewish idea.

Unless you meant to say that considering Plan B as abortion is a Christian idea.

+1
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: shaulyaakov on June 03, 2019, 09:10:30 AM
Huh? The idea that sex and procreation should not be disassociated is definitely a Jewish idea.

Unless you meant to say that considering Plan B as abortion is a Christian idea.

What on earth does abortion have to do with associating sex and procreation? Obviously, Halacha has opinions on contraception (which is a far more complicated area than abortion). But even in situations where Halacha might discourage contraception , I can't imagine anyone saying it applies to Bnai Noach. Plan B is simply a form of contraception. I can't see Halacha treating it any differently than any other form of oral birth control.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Boruch999 on June 03, 2019, 09:18:54 AM
What on earth does abortion have to do with associating sex and procreation? Obviously, Halacha has opinions on contraception (which is a far more complicated area than abortion). But even in situations where Halacha might discourage contraception , I can't imagine anyone saying it applies to Bnai Noach. Plan B is simply a form of contraception. I can't see Halacha treating it any differently than any other form of oral birth control.

You are in agreement with him.  Someone said
Being anti Plan B is a purely Christian idea.

which I think we all agree is not strictly true, as
I can't see Halacha treating it any differently than any other form of oral birth control.


Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 03, 2019, 09:37:18 AM
Unless you meant to say that considering Plan B as abortion is a Christian idea.
This is what I meant. That the pro-life lobby that is also anti Plan B is coming from a Christian mindset.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 03, 2019, 09:41:01 AM
Yes but so much of the anti-abortion lobby is purely Christian. Catholics have zero tolerance for abortion even for saving the life of the mother. No one is trying to regulate based on halacha, nor should we be advocating for that.
So how should we advocate for regulation? Halacha tells us what to consider a fetus, not anything or anyone else. To be clear, I am anti abortion regulation, but not because I believe that it's ok in most instances. The problem with coming up with arbitrary situations when abortion is ok and when it isn't ok is exactly that, it's arbitrary.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: saw50st8 on June 03, 2019, 01:23:52 PM
So how should we advocate for regulation? Halacha tells us what to consider a fetus, not anything or anyone else. To be clear, I am anti abortion regulation, but not because I believe that it's ok in most instances. The problem with coming up with arbitrary situations when abortion is ok and when it isn't ok is exactly that, it's arbitrary.

We should advocate for regulations that help reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the situations where people feel like they cannot afford them.  That naturally reduces abortions.

Many people who are pro-choice (myself included) don't necessarily support people aborting for no reason but think that should be left between a woman and her doctor to work out.

I don't think we should regulate things that get in the way of religion because we are a minority. It doesn't end well if you pick a religion to regulate. I will consult my own Rabbi should I have a question on abortion. I can only do that if they are legal.

Is this true? It doesn't seem so clear cut.

I think the catholic position is that you cannot actively abort a fetus to save a mother's life. I started googling and it seems fairly accurate although I did discover this group:

https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TruthaboutCatholicsandAbortion.pdf

I don't know where they fall within Catholicism so that very well may be the "reform" position so to speak. Like everything else, it seems to depend who you ask.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 03, 2019, 05:10:49 PM
We should advocate for regulations that help reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the situations where people feel like they cannot afford them.  That naturally reduces abortions.

Many people who are pro-choice (myself included) don't necessarily support people aborting for no reason but think that should be left between a woman and her doctor to work out.

I don't think we should regulate things that get in the way of religion because we are a minority. It doesn't end well if you pick a religion to regulate. I will consult my own Rabbi should I have a question on abortion. I can only do that if they are legal.
I quite frankly find your watered-down Judaism nauseating. You call yourself pro-choice. That means something. Pro-choice means advocating for legalized abortion.

Then you pivot to not wanting to actively regulate abortion, which means you aren't really pro-choice. You don't want religion involved because we are a minority (an absurd idea) but of-course we really should advocate to minimize unwanted pregnancies. 

Sorry, but Judaism isn't based on wishy-washy, half-baked ideas. Frum Jews always abhorred pro-choice which means advocating for freedom to murder at the flip of a dime. Healthy frum Jews also don't have an inferiority complex so they don't view the fact that they are a minority as a reason not to advocate for their rights.
 
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: mmgfarb on June 03, 2019, 06:00:36 PM
I quite frankly find your watered-down Judaism nauseating. You call yourself pro-choice. That means something. Pro-choice means advocating for legalized abortion.

Then you pivot to not wanting to actively regulate abortion, which means you aren't really pro-choice. You don't want religion involved because we are a minority (an absurd idea) but of-course we really should advocate to minimize unwanted pregnancies. 

Sorry, but Judaism isn't based on wishy-washy, half-baked ideas. Frum Jews always abhorred pro-choice which means advocating for freedom to murder at the flip of a dime. Healthy frum Jews also don't have an inferiority complex so they don't view the fact that they are a minority as a reason not to advocate for their rights.
 
Quite frankly, you have lost the ability to both, see what someone here actually means with their post, and to respond with an actual thought out response which is coherently put into words.
Title: Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
Post by: Shkop on June 03, 2019, 06:29:15 PM
Quite frankly, you have lost the ability to both, see what someone here actually means with their post,
I should be deciphering a hidden meaning? He/she wrote that he/she is pro choice and that we should not regulate things that get in the way of religion because we are a minority. Awful ideas.

and to respond with an actual thought out response which is coherently put into words.
Noting incoherent with what I wrote.