Abortion = Murder?

[shaulyaakov]

You are stating as fact something that is very much in dispute.

This is a very good question, but it has to be balanced by our halachik responsibility to ensure that non-jews keep the Sheva mitzvos, amongst which is the prohibition of שופך דם האדם באדם

As are you: 1. That it is murder. 2. That it is murder for non-Jews 3. That we have a responsibility to ensure that non-Jews keep Mitzvos when it's not a Halachic government.

I rephase my comment: "Abortion is not necessarily murder, and certainly has more Heterim attached than actual murder does."

[Shkop]

So let's say a woman gets a psak from a Gadol that she is required to get an abortion for health reasons, but either there is no Dr. willing to risk it, or otherwise the law doesn't allow it in that case. What is the woman to do here - get an abortion anyway for religious reasons, or not get it? The Agudah has been against strict anti-abortion laws before. If the Agudah has that position, maybe that says something about the "life begins at conception" argument, that only holds water in fundamentalist Christian theology.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of abortions performed in the 50 states are not due to any medical danger to the mother.

By the way, it's interesting to note that before the giving of the Torah, Pharaoh commanded the midwives to kill the Jewish male infants while the mother was on the birth stool. Of-course they risked their lives and refused to do it. Isn't that late stage abortion?

[Shkop]

As are you: 1. That it is murder. 2. That it is murder for non-Jews 3. That we have a responsibility to ensure that non-Jews keep Mitzvos when it's not a Halachic government.

I rephase my comment: "Abortion is not necessarily murder, and certainly has more Heterim attached than actual murder does."

You can forget about the whole non-Jewish argument because regardless there are non-religious Jewish women that will get an abortion as quickly as anyone else.

[shaulyaakov]

You can forget about the whole non-Jewish argument because regardless there are non-religious Jewish women that will get an abortion as quickly as anyone else.

Should we lobby congress to outlaw non-kosher food as well since Jews will eat it? What about to outlaw Christianity or Hindu/Mamish A"Z since some Jews R"L are intermarried and attend services of other religions? Why is abortion one of the few/only areas where we need to make sure secular law is in line with Halacha?

[sky121]

Should we lobby congress to outlaw non-kosher food as well since Jews will eat it? What about to outlaw Christianity or Hindu/Mamish A"Z since some Jews R"L are intermarried and attend services of other religions? Why is abortion one of the few/only areas where we need to make sure secular law is in line with Halacha?

Interesting question. While my first reaction as to an answer is that because abortion affects someone else as well, not just the one doing it.

But it's definitely an interesting question and I'm curious to hear others answers as well.

[shaulyaakov]

https://agudathisrael.org/weighs-in-on-ohio-abortion-bill/

Agudah was against a very similar law in Ohio a. They also are against the NYC bill that essentially allows abortion on demand. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/1670965/agudath-israel-of-america-releases-statement-on-new-horrific-murderous-abortion-law.html

So there's clearly lots of nuance here.

[Shkop]

Should we lobby congress to outlaw non-kosher food as well since Jews will eat it? What about to outlaw Christianity or Hindu/Mamish A"Z since some Jews R"L are intermarried and attend services of other religions? Why is abortion one of the few/only areas where we need to make sure secular law is in line with Halacha?

Very basic difference.

There is nothing wrong with non-kosher food. The issue is just that Jews can't eat it. We won't advocate for outlawing something that is fine for humanity because there are Jews that choose to sin.

Banning idol worship would be amazing, but there is no way to do it, so it's a waste of time. RMBM says that atheism is worse than idol-worship, so if you could convince people to believe, you would be doing a tremendous thing.

Abortion is a horrible thing for all humanity and many want it outlawed so there is a legal path that is worth advocting for.

[Shkop]

https://agudathisrael.org/weighs-in-on-ohio-abortion-bill/

Agudah was against a very similar law in Ohio a. They also are against the NYC bill that essentially allows abortion on demand. https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/1670965/agudath-israel-of-america-releases-statement-on-new-horrific-murderous-abortion-law.html

So there's clearly lots of nuance here.

So the Agudah advocates for an amendment where "in those extreme circumstances where the law is in conflict with a woman’s sincerely held religious beliefs" that she should be able to exercise here right. Let's say there is a severe medical issue and halacha views the child as a rodef R"L, then that woman should be able to invoke her rights.

That has nothing to do with the general advocation for an anti-abortion bill.

[shaulyaakov]

So the Agudah advocates for an amendment where "in those extreme circumstances where the law is in conflict with a woman’s sincerely held religious beliefs" that she should be able to exercise here right. Let's say there is a severe medical issue and halacha views the child as a rodef R"L, then that woman should be able to invoke her rights.

That has nothing to do with the general advocation for an anti-abortion bill.

How does a secular government decide when a religious exemption is justified and when it's not?

[TimT]

Should we lobby congress to outlaw non-kosher food as well since Jews will eat it? What about to outlaw Christianity or Hindu/Mamish A"Z since some Jews R"L are intermarried and attend services of other religions? Why is abortion one of the few/only areas where we need to make sure secular law is in line with Halacha?

1 big difference is if you choose to eat treif or intermarry, it’s your choice & it’s only between you & g-d. Whereas abortion there’s a 3rd party being killed without getting any say. Most would choose NO no doubt.

[Shkop]

How does a secular government decide when a religious exemption is justified and when it's not?

I don't know what metric they would use, but certainly what you wrote below is very exaggerated:

The Agudah has been against strict anti-abortion laws before. If the Agudah has that position, maybe that says something about the "life begins at conception" argument, that only holds water in fundamentalist Christian theology.

They are not against strict anti-abortion laws. They just want an amendment for halachic cases in extreme circumstances like if the mother's life is endangered.

[shaulyaakov]

I don't know what metric they would use, but certainly what you wrote below is very exaggerated:

They are not against strict anti-abortion laws. They just want an amendment for halachic cases in extreme circumstances like if the mother's life is endangered.

Let's say someone has a "closely held religious belief" that an abortion is OK if the mother will suffer anxiety, depression, morning sickness etc. Does the government carve out religious exemptions for them? Having religious exemptions to abortion laws will end up either favoring some religions over others, or will end up creating such a big loophole that anyone can join the Church of Satan and be allowed to get an abortion for any reason.

[Shkop]

Let's say someone has a "closely held religious belief" that an abortion is OK if the mother will suffer anxiety, depression, morning sickness etc. Does the government carve out religious exemptions for them? Having religious exemptions to abortion laws will end up either favoring some religions over others, or will end up creating such a big loophole that anyone can join the Church of Satan and be allowed to get an abortion for any reason.

Perhaps the rare case of a woman who is really in danger is so vital that it deserves an amendment regardless of the points you raise. But remember that if something seems off, like if a woman claims a religious exemption due to morning sickness, the state can step in and argue that it isn't a valid use of the amendment.

But don't lose sight of the forest because of the trees. If your overall point is that because such an amendment has naunce, therefore we shouldn't try to outlaw abortion in the first place...well that would be really sad.

[shaulyaakov]

Perhaps the rare case of a woman who is really in danger is so vital that it deserves an amendment regardless of the points you raise. But remember that if something seems off, like if a woman claims a religious exemption due to morning sickness, the state can step in and argue that it isn't a valid use of the amendment.

But don't lose sight of the forest because of the trees. If your overall point is that because such an amendment has naunce, therefore we shouldn't try to outlaw abortion in the first place...well that would be really sad.

What gives the state the right to say that one execption is valid and another is not? Wouldn't that violate the establishment clause of the constitution?

The problem with encouraging the government to pass laws based on religious motivations is that not all religions share the same motivations.

[aygart]

By the way, it's interesting to note that before the giving of the Torah, Pharaoh commanded the midwives to kill the Jewish male infants while the mother was on the birth stool. Of-course they risked their lives and refused to do it. Isn't that late stage abortion?

Ummm no. If they already saw the gender of the baby then it would be post live birth.

[Shkop]

The problem with encouraging the government to pass laws based on religious motivations is that not all religions share the same motivations.

Well, we are Orthodox Jews, and we strongly believe that we got it right so we will advocate based on the religious motivations as set forth in halacha.

[shaulyaakov]

Well, we are Orthodox Jews, and we strongly believe that we got it right so we will advocate based on the religious motivations as set forth in halacha.

Well I hope you would never advocate a religious rights suit if in a different case a different religion wins out.

Part of living in a democracy with religious freedom means believing that all religions are treated equally by the government.

[shaulyaakov]

Ummm no. If they already saw the gender of the baby then it would be post live birth.

And aborting a fetus against the mother's will is wrong anyhow.

[Shkop]

Ummm no. If they already saw the gender of the baby then it would be post live birth.

See the Ohr Hachaim (shmos 1:16). He states clearly that this is a case of late-stage abortion, otherwise, the mothers would know what the midwives were doing. He proves further from Midrash that states that Pharaoh gave the midwives signs to know prior to birth if the child will be a boy or girl.

[shaulyaakov]

Furthermore, if you actually believe that abortion=murder, then you wouldn't care about a religious exception, as it is well understood that we don't allow a religious exemption to allow murder, even if a religion had a sincerely held religious belief for child sacrifice.

As for the argument that abortion is worse than other things since it  affects a 3rd party, why should the government allow a religious exception if it means killing a 3rd party who possibly doesn't share those religious beliefs? We would never allow a religious exception to anything else if it meant harming a 3rd party.

Bottom line, I don't know of a way to craft a logical and consistent argument to simultaneously say that abortion should be so heavily restricted because it is murder, but that there should be religious exceptions in some cases.