Abortion = Murder?

[Boruch999]

Correct. And proposing religious exemptions either favors one religion over another (unconstitutional) or creates a sitatuon where no reasonable abortion law can stand because anyone can then join the church of Satan that mandates abortion whenever the mother wants.

I agree that religious exemptions are not feasible. Never-the-less there are a number of reasons your concerns don't concern me.

1.  According to news reports this bill was designed to be in maximum conflict with Roe in order to maximize chances of reaching SCOTUS and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be implemented as written.
2.  Even if the bill as written prevails in SCOTUS, it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will endorse the bill's definition of person-hood making abortion illegal on a Constitutional level.  Abortions will still be available on demand in NY and CA and many states in between.  It is difficult to imagine a case where the mothers health exemption is not triggered and travel out of state is not possible.
3. We benefit greatly from living in a moral society and it is in our interest to see society maintain it's morality even if that comes at a cost.  Under secular law a rape exemption is morally indefensible. 

I also take issue with the absolute claims that  abortion = murder according to Halacha, as well as the concept that Jewish people should pursue legal avenues in a secular government to enforce 7 mitzvos Bnai Noach.

We are pretty much in agreement on this.

[shaulyaakov]

I agree that religious exemptions are not feasible. Never-the-less there are a number of reasons your concerns don't concern me.

1.  According to news reports this bill was designed to be in maximum conflict with Roe in order to maximize chances of reaching SCOTUS and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be implemented as written.
2.  Even if the bill as written prevails in SCOTUS, it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will endorse the bill's definition of person-hood making abortion illegal on a Constitutional level.  Abortions will still be available on demand in NY and CA and many states in between.  It is difficult to imagine a case where the mothers health exemption is not triggered and travel out of state is not possible.
3. We benefit greatly from living in a moral society and it is in our interest to see society maintain it's morality even if that comes at a cost.  Under secular law a rape exemption is morally indefensible. 
 We are pretty much in agreement on this.

A rape exception makes sense if you bele8ve that while a fetus is important, the civil rights of a fetus are lower than the rights of the mother.

So if there's no significant harm to the mother by carrying the fetus, the default is that the fetus has rights, and therefore, no abortion. In the case of rape, I presume that there is a huge psychological cost to the mother and therefore that gets weighed against the lower civil rights of a fetus.

[Boruch999]

A rape exception makes sense if you believe that while a fetus is important, the civil rights of a fetus are lower than the rights of the mother.

So if there's no significant harm to the mother by carrying the fetus, the default is that the fetus has rights, and therefore, no abortion. In the case of rape, I presume that there is a huge psychological cost to the mother and therefore that gets weighed against the lower civil rights of a fetus.

So you agree with points 1 and 2?

From a secular point of view, it is difficult for me to see why a fetus should have less rights than the mother. What about at 39 weeks?

And even if you can get around that, we're talking about killing the fetus. So even if the fetus' rights yield to the mother's to what extent? Prisoners lose some of their rights. Does that mean we can kill them if their existence causes a non prisoner huge psychological harm? 

[shaulyaakov]

I agree that the bil is mostly theatrics but it's also not impossible for most of it to go into effect.

I don't buy into the idea that 1 state can have a radical abortion law because another state has a radically permissive law. I would like all states to have laws that make abortions safe, but rare.

I'm not sure why you think secular law has to beleive a fetus is the same as a person and not the extention of the mother, albeit with some limited personhood status.

We do put prisoners to death when they do things that caused enough harm.

[Boruch999]

I agree that the bil is mostly theatrics but it's also not impossible for most of it to go into effect.

I don't buy into the idea that 1 state can have a radical abortion law because another state has a radically permissive law. I would like all states to have laws that make abortions safe, but rare.

I'm not sure why you think secular law has to beleive a fetus is the se as a person and not the extention of the mother, albeit with some limited personhood status.

We do put prisoners to death when they do things that caused enough harm.

I'm not saying I think this is an ideal situation, I'm just saying I don't think the Alabama law is cause to worry and in general is a positive development.

It is genetically unique from the mother and will become a person with out any further intervention. I don't think science justifies a distinction between helpless and dependent on the mother inside the womb and helpless and dependent on the mother outside the womb.

We put prisoners to death as punishment for bad things that they did that they shouldn't have done. A fetus who is the result of a rape did not do anything wrong.

[shaulyaakov]

I'm not saying I think this is an ideal situation, I'm just saying I don't think the Alabama law is cause to worry and in general is a positive development.

It is genetically unique from the mother and will become a person with out any further intervention. I don't think science justifies a distinction between helpless and dependent on the mother inside the womb and helpless and dependent on the mother outside the womb.

We put prisoners to death as punishment for bad things that they did that they shouldn't have done. A fetus who is the result of a rape did not do anything wrong.

I wouldn't support a law in Alabama that I wouldn't want where I live.

I think there is plenty of groundwork laid out in a Halachic framework that a fetus (especially before 40 days) isn't a full fledged
 person, and that genetic material isn't the same as a person, especially at a time when we're labor to occur, there is a 0% chance of viability. That a secular person subscribes to the same flow of logic isn't necessarily wrong.

[Boruch999]

I wouldn't support a law in Alabama that I wouldn't want where I live.

I think there is plenty of groundwork laid out in a Halachic framework that a fetus (especially before 40 days) isn't a full fledged
 person, and that genetic material isn't the same as a person, especially at a time when we're labor to occur, there is a 0% chance of viability. That a secular person subscribes to the same flow of logic isn't necessarily wrong.

If it were the AL law or the NY law I'd choose the AL law. That's where we differ.  Of course I'd prefer a law that says exactly what halacha says.

The halachik framework is not a flow of logic but rather Torah sources.  A secular system that does not recognize the Torah as a legal authority with have a hard time using it to determine the law.  I can't imagine the law would have been better received on the left if it had a rape exemption for 40 days. 

[Yonah]

A fetus who is the result of a rape did not do anything wrong.

I didn't want to wade into this controversy, but this comment royally ticked me off. The real person who did nothing wrong - the RAPE VICTIM!!!!!

Interestingly enough, when a woman gives birth, she needs to go to shul to bentch gomel - why? Because she's entered a life-threatening situation.

So essentially, a fetus, who isn't viable outside the womb, who isn't guaranteed to be a viable child (and even if s/he was born and we killed them we wouldn't be liable for their death al pi halacha until they were a month old) that was created by someone's ILLEGAL action - has more rights than a woman who is required by law to continue to put her own life in danger for a situation that was caused by a crime?

[shaulyaakov]

If it were the AL law or the NY law I'd choose the AL law. That's where we differ.  Of course I'd prefer a law that says exactly what halacha says.

The halachik framework is not a flow of logic but rather Torah sources.  A secular system that does not recognize the Torah as a legal authority with have a hard time using it to determine the law.  I can't imagine the law would have been better received on the left if it had a rape exemption for 40 days.

That's where I disagree. I think Halachic sources support a unique status to a fetus that makes it neither correct to call it a person or a limb of the mother. Secular logic figured this out as well, hence the term fetus.

[Boruch999]

I didn't want to wade into this controversy, but this comment royally ticked me off. The real person who did nothing wrong - the RAPE VICTIM!!!!!

Interestingly enough, when a woman gives birth, she needs to go to shul to bentch gomel - why? Because she's entered a life-threatening situation.

So essentially, a fetus, who isn't viable outside the womb, who isn't guaranteed to be a viable child (and even if s/he was born and we killed them we wouldn't be liable for their death al pi halacha until they were a month old) that was created by someone's ILLEGAL action - has more rights than a woman who is required by law to continue to put her own life in danger for a situation that was caused by a crime?

Sheesh.  The comment that royally ticked you off is a fact and it was said in context of differentiating a fetus from a criminal sentenced to death.  Nowhere did I say or imply that the rape victim did anything wrong.

There are multiple places where your logic escapes me.  Do you really think US law should consider every child birth as putting the mothers life in danger when considering whether abortion should be permitted?  Do you really think US law should consider the murder of babies less than a month old as less severe than the murder of a baby older than a month?

[doodle]

Correct. And proposing religious exemptions either favors one religion over another (unconstitutional) or creates a sitatuon where no reasonable abortion law can stand because anyone can then join the church of Satan that mandates abortion whenever the mother wants.

I also take issue with the absolute claims that  abortion = murder according to Halacha, as well as the concept that Jewish people should pursue legal avenues in a secular government to enforce 7 mitzvos Bnai Noach.

You are Terribly small minded.
Try to see a world view from a Jewish perspective, instead of just hiding.
Meeting some Good Chabad People May help you !

[shaulyaakov]

You are Terribly small minded.
Try to see a world view from a Jewish perspective, instead of just hiding.
Meeting some Good Chabad People May help you !

I've literally been arguing for a position that the Alabama law is agaisnt Halacha.

[Shkop]

I've literally been arguing for a position that the Alabama law is agaisnt Halacha.

You can argue as much as you like, but as far as Halacha goes it's irrelevant. The mainstream, majority opinion in Jewish Law, which includes Rav Moshe Feinstein, is that abortion is murder.
לברר שהריגת עובר אסורה באסור רציחה בין בעכו“ם
בין בישראל... ולכן לדינא... איכא איסור רציחה מלא
תרצח גם על עובר ורק שפטור ההורגו ממיתה.

[shaulyaakov]

You can argue as much as you like, but as far as Halacha goes it's irrelevant. The mainstream, majority opinion in Jewish Law, which includes Rav Moshe Feinstein, is that abortion is murder.
לברר שהריגת עובר אסורה באסור רציחה בין בעכו“ם
בין בישראל... ולכן לדינא... איכא איסור רציחה מלא
תרצח גם על עובר ורק שפטור ההורגו ממיתה.

The tzeiz Eliezer disagrees, and that position has been used to be matir in cases of significant hardship. Not allowing people the opportunity to have a discussion with their rabbonim is wrong, especially given that there is debate on the issue, and anyone who is seriously invested in seeking a heter is probably undergoing some sort of hardship we can't imagine.

I don't believe that laws allowing abortion at any time for any reason are morally right, but my religious worldview stops me from supporting a law that will make it harder for people to follow a Psak, even if the law is in a limited geographic area.

[Shkop]

The tzeiz Eliezer disagrees, and that position has been used to be matir in cases of significant hardship. Not allowing people the opportunity to have a discussion with their rabbonim is wrong, especially given that there is debate on the issue, and anyone who is seriously invested in seeking a heter is probably undergoing some sort of hardship we can't imagine.

My point was that your personal opinion on what the Halacha should be (as indicated above) is immaterial, not that a halachic expert shouldn't be consulted.

[doodle]

but my religious worldview stops me from supporting a law that will make it harder for people to follow a Psak, even if the law is in a limited geographic area.

You badly need to increase your wordview. A Jew is supposed to be “A light unto the Nations”
Try to meet some Good and Inspirational Yidden !

[Yonah]

Sheesh.  The comment that royally ticked you off is a fact and it was said in context of differentiating a fetus from a criminal sentenced to death.  Nowhere did I say or imply that the rape victim did anything wrong.

Sorry that I pulled it out of context.

There are multiple places where your logic escapes me.  Do you really think US law should consider every child birth as putting the mothers life in danger when considering whether abortion should be permitted?

My logic is this - pregnancy has inherent risks and health problems that come along with it. When someone willingly gets pregnant , she is accepting those risks. When her pregnancy comes about as the victim of a crime - this law forces her to accept all of those risks. The law is essentially asking her to put her health at risk for the sake of a pregnancy which was forced on her as the victim of a crime.

She's also responsible for the consequences as well - any lost time from work, or medical bills - We're doubly victimizing a rape victim.

Do you really think US law should consider the murder of babies less than a month old as less severe than the murder of a baby older than a month?

My point about a 30 day old baby wasn't to suggest that us law take it into consideration. My point was the extreme as to which halacha doesn't consider a baby to be a 'person' for the purposes of murder. But my real point was that by not having a 'Rape' exemption, we burdening the victim of a crime at the expense of a the rights of a bunch of cells which aren't yet a person. (I am not talking about a late term abortion, because I imagine that a Rape Victim would be at her doctor's the minute she thought she was pregnant).

[mmgfarb]

You badly need to increase your wordview. A Jew is supposed to be “A light unto the Nations”
Try to meet some Good and Inspirational Yidden !

You're missing the point so badly that saying he needs to increase his worldview is terribly hypocritical at best and mildly idiotic at worst.

[shaulyaakov]

Sorry that I pulled it out of context.

My logic is this - pregnancy has inherent risks and health problems that come along with it. When someone willingly gets pregnant , she is accepting those risks. When her pregnancy comes about as the victim of a crime - this law forces her to accept all of those risks. The law is essentially asking her to put her health at risk for the sake of a pregnancy which was forced on her as the victim of a crime.

She's also responsible for the consequences as well - any lost time from work, or medical bills - We're doubly victimizing a rape victim.

My point about a 30 day old baby wasn't to suggest that us law take it into consideration. My point was the extreme as to which halacha doesn't consider a baby to be a 'person' for the purposes of murder. But my real point was that by not having a 'Rape' exemption, we burdening the victim of a crime at the expense of a the rights of a bunch of cells which aren't yet a person. (I am not talking about a late term abortion, because I imagine that a Rape Victim would be at her doctor's the minute she thought she was pregnant).

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.

[doodle]

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.

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.