Abortion = Murder?

[Shkop]

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.

If we live in a democracy where all religions are treated equally, no one has a problem believing that, since that is the reality. The question is what our approach should be.

If in a democracy everyone has free rights to live with any willing adult, does that make it OK? A democracy is a form of government, not an intrinsic truth.

Actually, because we live in a democracy, therefore we also have a right to advocate for our rights (surprising, isn't it?). And we are convinced that we got it right. So we have no problem pushing for an amendment based on halacha.

[TimT]

Are there religous exemptions other than physical danger to mother or child ?

[shaulyaakov]

If we live in a democracy where all religions are treated equally, no one has a problem believing that, since that is the reality. The question is what our approach should be.

If in a democracy everyone has free rights to live with any willing adult, does that make it OK? A democracy is a form of government, not an intrinsic truth.

Actually, because we live in a democracy, therefore we also have a right to advocate for our rights (surprising, isn't it?). And we are convinced that we got it right. So we have no problem pushing for an amendment based on halacha.

Advocate for beliefs, sure. Don't advocate for religious exceptions that suit your needs only and not others, othweise it sets a precedent that the government can favor 1 religion over another and that's a dangerous path to go down.

[shaulyaakov]

Are there religous exemptions other than physical danger to mother or child ?

Birth defects, or mental health issues for starters.

[Shkop]

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.

Wrong. If someone tries killing you, you are commanded to fight back with everything you have. If a woman's life is in danger, the child is viewed as trying to kill the mother (not in a bad way, in a legal sense). So now it's a question of which one makes it since unfortunately both lives are in jeopardy. In fact, it is only because it is a case of murder that we employ such a serious step.

[shaulyaakov]

Wrong. If someone tries killing you, you are commanded to fight back with everything you have. If a woman's life is in danger, the child is viewed as trying to kill the mother (not in a bad way, in a legal sense). So now it's a question of which one makes it since unfortunately both lives are in jeopardy. In fact, it is only because it is a case of murder that we employ such a serious step.

There have been major poskim who have allowed abortion under circumstances other than the death of the mother. Is that the only exception you are seeking?

[Shkop]

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.

OK, so you don't. This is a great example of asking a great Torah scholar how to proceed.

[shaulyaakov]

OK, so you don't. This is a great example of asking a great Torah scholar how to proceed.

Or a US legal expert. Since neither of us (presumably) are Alabama legislators, and our support is therefore meaningless, trying to debate on DDF is purely extracurricular. Should an issue come up as a ballot referendum i, that's a different story. The issue with these bills is the right wing position is based on Christian ideals, the left wing position is based on secular values, and the frum position is somewhere between them.

[Shkop]

Advocate for beliefs, sure. Don't advocate for religious exceptions that suit your needs only and not others, othweise it sets a precedent that the government can favor 1 religion over another and that's a dangerous path to go down.

I don't know why you view the request for a religious amendment to be a bad thing. We are advocating for people in extreme cases under dire circumstances to be able to avail themselves to an exception based on a legitimate halachic ruling. That's what a political organization does. It advocates for its constituency.

[Shkop]

Or a US legal expert. Since neither of us (presumably) are Alabama legislators, and our support is therefore meaningless, trying to debate on DDF is purely extracurricular. Should an issue come up as a ballot referendum i, that's a different story. The issue with these bills is the right wing position is based on Christian ideals, the left wing position is based on secular values, and the frum position is somewhere between them.

Our discussion is purely extracurricular but as far as positions on issues go, legitimate Jews look toward the opinion of those most knowledgable in Torah, not lawyers and legal experts. We go to lawyers to help us navigate the law, not for opinions on life issues. 

[mmgfarb]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-passes-bill-that-would-make-almost-all-abortions-illegal-house-dems-target-trump-lawyers
What a great day!
Alabama makes nearly all abortions illegal (except for cases where the mother is in danger).
Hopefully, this spreads to other states as well. Doctors get life in prison for murdering babies. Imagine that! snuffing out a life is a punishable crime.

So much fun watching libs cry how Alabama is stopping baby slaying. Crazy Bernie says baby slaying is a constitutional right.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-abortion-a-constitutional-right

First it's this because it's "immoral" and then it's milah because it's also "immoral" and then shchita, etc... Remember that these beliefs about abortion come from the catholics, not us. Idk why frum Jews are advocates of government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

[mmgfarb]

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

Not our job, not our responsibility. Even if it were, it's not our country or our government.

[Shkop]

First it's this because it's "immoral" and then it's milah because it's also "immoral" and then shchita, etc... Remember that these beliefs about abortion come from the catholics, not us. Idk why frum Jews are advocates of government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

Because frum Jews consider G-d's word to be final they advocate for that which G-d wants. We are advocates for governments telling people what they should not do with their bodies. We would be delighted if a government said that one may not use their body to violate the command of "thou shall not commit adultery" or "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not steal".

[mmgfarb]

Because frum Jews consider G-d's word to be final they advocate for that which G-d wants. We are advocates for governments telling people what they should not do with their bodies. We would be delighted if a government said that one may not use their body to violate the command of "thou shall not commit adultery" or "thou shall not kill" or "thou shall not steal".

And what about when the government decides that we shouldn't be allowed to circumcise people before they're 18? Besides for the fact that you're completely making this up that we would want the American government to tell people that they can't commit adultery, the other two are already illegal...

[zh cohen]

The frum position is somewhere between them.

This is where I disagree. True, there are differences between Torah's approach and the right wing approach, however fundamentally they are coming from the same place (putting value on unborn life and according to most poskim regarding [certainly a non-jewish] fetus as a human being.) In other words, the differences are in nuance.

[zh cohen]

Not our job, not our responsibility.

Wrong. וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל מצות שנצטוו בני נח

[mmgfarb]

This is where I disagree. True, there are differences between Torah's approach and the right wing approach, however fundamentally they are coming from the same place (putting value on unborn life and according to most poskim regarding [certainly a non-jewish] fetus as a human being.) In other words, the differences are in nuance.

The idea that, from conception, a fetus is held on the same status as a live human is not a Torah idea. Besides for the fact that even if it were true that our ideals lined up exactly, why advocate for the government making morality a question of law? It's not the government's job.

[Shkop]

And what about when the government decides that we shouldn't be allowed to circumcise people before they're 18?

Then we would be very sad and try our very best to get it rescinded.

[mmgfarb]

Wrong. וכן צוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל מצות שנצטוו בני נח

Ah, so it's our land with our government with our rulers now?

[mmgfarb]

Then we would be very sad and try our very best to get it rescinded.

But why give our government the ability to do that to begin with? It's our job to make sure that the goyim do as few "immoral" things as possible?