Abortion = Murder?

[shaulyaakov]

Wow your uneducated. Please ask One Posek , anyone ,
 before you continue to spout how little you really know of this subject.
Or P.M.me and I will provide you source material.

Well, here is some of mine:

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

You can read the last line: Rabbi Tendler: The impending review ofthis 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.

The article also state in no uncertain terms several times that if we fear suicide, there is an obligation to abort.

[Mo2]

Wow your uneducated. Please ask One Posek , anyone ,
 before you continue to spout how little you really know of this subject.
Or P.M.me and I will provide you source material.

+1

[shaulyaakov]

Well, here is some of mine:

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

You can read the last line: Rabbi Tendler: The impending review ofthis 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.

The article also state in no uncertain terms several times that if we fear suicide, there is an obligation to abort.

Also, this tidbit: 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.

(same source as above).

[Shkop]

Here are 2 nice Q&A's from R' Avigdor Miller ztl.

https://torasavigdor.org/rav-avigdor-miller-on-separation-of-church-and-state/

https://torasavigdor.org/rav-avigdor-miller-on-joining-the-fight-against-antisemitism/

In the first he discusses separation of church and state. He says that we want religion in politics.
In the second he lambastes Jewish organizations fighting antisemitism that advocate for gays and abortion because everyone should have free rights.

[zh cohen]

Also, this tidbit: 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.

(same source as above).

How do either of these quotes support this statement;

To echo this, I don't think a single mainstream posek in the world would require a woman to carry her rapist's baby unwillingly rather than get an abortion in the first 40 days.

[shaulyaakov]

How do either of these quotes support this statement;

I already quoted a summary of the tzeiz Eliezer above. Do you have a source that abortion is prohibited even in the case of rape?

[shaulyaakov]

Moreover, Rav tendler wouldn't have said the government should stay out of deciding abortion law in the case of rape if he thought it was assur for non Jews.

[gozalim]

Moreover, Rav tendler wouldn't have said the government should stay out of deciding abortion law in the case of rape if he thought it was assur for non Jews.

he actually comes out and says he prefers the government not be in the business of enforcing 7 mitzvos bnei noach

[doodle]

Moreover, Rav tendler wouldn't have said the government should stay out of deciding abortion law in the case of rape if he thought it was assur for non Jews.

So ... after you read Rav Tendlers opinion , you than decided what every Posek probably holds .
You never even PMd me for source material. .
Good bye !

[zh cohen]

I already quoted a summary of the tzeiz Eliezer above. Do you have a source that abortion is prohibited even in the case of rape?

אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב' סוף ס' עא amongst many others

[gozalim]

I already quoted a summary of the tzeiz Eliezer above. Do you have a source that abortion is prohibited even in the case of rape?

even ben shapiro knows that he's an outlier 

[shaulyaakov]

even ben shapiro knows that he's an outlier 

An outlier Psak that's used in extreme cases, such as rape.

[zh cohen]

אגרות משה חושן משפט חלק ב' סוף ס' עא amongst many others.

Also ס' ס'ט and several others there.

[skyguy918]

Outlier or not, I think it would be a stretch to say that there's an 'accepted' set of psakim/halachos governing all abortion situations. As such, even if one feels that the correct hashkafa is for us as Jews to advocate for what we think is correct in the realm of abortions to be implemented as secular law, there may not be a consensus/accepted set of halachos on the subject to turn into law. These are things that are very much decided on a case by case basis in Judaism, and you're never going to be able to install a system of secular law that would emulate having poskei hador decide such matters.

[zh cohen]

Also ס' ס'ט and several others there.

You can also find R' Moshe's view on permissive abortion laws there