Author Topic: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality  (Read 9507 times)

Offline Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1833
  • Total likes: 112
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #120 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.

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1601
  • Total likes: 115
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #121 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.


Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 4394
  • Total likes: 139
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #122 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1601
  • Total likes: 115
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #123 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.

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1601
  • Total likes: 115
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #124 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.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 4394
  • Total likes: 139
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #125 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.
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1833
  • Total likes: 112
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #126 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.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 6930
  • Total likes: 1590
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #127 on: May 22, 2019, 10:46:04 AM »
It is very sad to be seeing a machlokes haposkim between Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used to start a religious discussion.

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1601
  • Total likes: 115
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #128 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.

Offline saw50st8

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Posts: 269
  • Total likes: 60
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #129 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.

Offline Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1833
  • Total likes: 112
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #130 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?

Offline saw50st8

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Aug 2015
  • Posts: 269
  • Total likes: 60
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #131 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.

Offline Shkop

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 374
  • Total likes: 9
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #132 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.
A democracy is a form of government, not an intrinsic truth

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1601
  • Total likes: 115
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #133 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?

Offline Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1833
  • Total likes: 112
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #134 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