From an absolutely fascinating interview with Rabbi Moshe Tendler in 1989http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=175 Jewish Review: This raises an important question, and that is, should we, as Jews, strive to achieve a state of affairs in which American law coincides with Jewish law on matters such as abortion, or should we rather campaign for wider latitude and individual discretion within secular law, on the theory that with such latitude there would be fewer obstacles to American Jews following Jewish law on any given issue?
Rabbi Tendler: This is a very astute and important question. As you most likely know, the Lubavitcher Rebbe took an approach based on the idea that the seven Noahidic laws are so universal and so categorically imperative on every human being that we, as Jews, have a mitzvah to, so to speak, ?push? them and hence, to foster a legal system that would, for example, prevent a Gentile from committing an abortion. There is no doubt that he is 100% correct from a halakhic point of view. It is a mitzvah for the Jew to en?courage the Gentile to perform his mitzvot. It is forbidden for a Jew to mislead a non- Jew into sin. We derive this from the Torah: ?Do not place a stumbling block before the blind.? It is hard to second guess the Rebbe either halakhically or politically. This is, of course, an issue of public welfare, and the question is whether or not the public welfare is served by legislation banning abortion. Here, I think, I could see two opinions. My father-in-law, the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, felt very strongly that allowing government to legislate in any area of morals and ethics gives them a toe-hold in religion, and if you let them in a little bit, the government will begin toexpand its role in this area and start less - lating what is proper to teach and what isproper to do in areligious context. Now, Rabbi Feinstein had lived some 10 to 15 years under Stalin and his experience of the Russian government's total involvement in the religious life ofthe Jew was so traumatic that he held fast to the idea that we should keep the government away from religion even in those instances where its legislation might seem to be supportive of the Torah point of view. For Rabbi Feinstein, the complete separation of church and state, was absolutely necessary for the survival of any minority group. What is the right approach? I really don't know. I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state and I believe that minority religious rights are best protected if government protects the rights of each individual to practice his religion without imposing any restrictions. I don't want to be the one making a decision between the Lubavitcher Rebbe's opinion and Rabbi Feinstein's opinion, but I lean inthe direction of Rabbi Feinstein. Perhaps there is a little nepotism at work here.
Jewish Review: How then does this apply to the recent United States Supreme Court consideration of the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, the right to abortion on demand? How would you want the court to decide this issue?
Rabbi Tendler: The impending review oft his landmark decision reawakened both the ?Pro-life? and ?Pro-choice? forces in society. Surely the Roe v. Wade decision that extended the right to privacy to include the right to abort any time before fetal viability (the end of the second trimester) should be overturned. The ?legalizing? of abortion led, de facto, to condoning abortion as morally acceptable. This was not the intent of the Supreme Court's opinion, but it was, nonetheless, the result. The primacy of maternal life as justifiable reason to abort, must be clearly stated and maintained. However, the ?frivolous? abortion for sex selection of to prevent discomfiture during a planned vacation must be declared illegal. Abortion because of rape, incest, fear of a probably genetic disease, or great familial stress must be left to individual conscience in our pluralistic society, without legal intrusion into the patient-physician relationship.
Poll