Judaism and abortion?

[Like the Drink]

I read somewhere that Jewish law requires abortion if necessary to save the mother's life prior to birth, and that Judaism holds that human life begins upon first breath. Is this true? I guess I'm clueless when it comes to Judaism. Help Please!

LtD

[Sacrificial Ram]

I read somewhere that Jewish law requires abortion if necessary to save the mother's life prior to birth, and that Judaism holds that human life begins upon first breath. Is this true? I guess I'm clueless when it comes to Judaism. Help Please!

LtD
Yes, that is true.

The concept is a fetus is at least a partial life, and even a paritial life
has infinate value. It becomes a 'full life', of value equal to the mother
when the head.

More information can be found http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp

[kofh2u]

Yes, that is true.

The concept is a fetus is at least a partial life, and even a paritial life
has infinate value. It becomes a 'full life', of value equal to the mother
when the head.

More information can be found http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp


Not all Jews believe in abortion:

2Kgs. 23:6 And he brought out the grove (of fornication by the worshippers of Ashtorah) from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook
Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children (aborted) of the people.

[bar Jonah]

The conservative and orthodox Jews I've known have been very pro-life. Anecdotal, but for what it's worth.

Also, I requested that the moderator(s) move this to the Judaism forum, which I believe is where it belongs.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Not all Jews believe in abortion:

2Kgs. 23:6 And he brought out the grove (of fornication by the worshippers of Ashtorah) from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook
Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children (aborted) of the people.

That is an out of context quote, and does not take into account the Jewish Law. Also, the term 'aborted' is not in 2 Kings. ... that is an exgensis.

If there is a doubt, ask a rabbi.

However, I will point out that under Jewish law, it is a very grave decision,
and is only done under the most extreme of curcumstances.

[Pitiricus]

The conservative and orthodox Jews I've known have been very pro-life. Anecdotal, but for what it's worth.

Also, I requested that the moderator(s) move this to the Judaism forum, which I believe is where it belongs.
You are comparing apples and oranges....

According to Jewish law, a fetus is not considered a full human being and has no juridical personality of its own. Rashi states clearly of the fetus "lav nefesh hu--it is not a person." The Talmud contains the expression "ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.


The issue of therapeutic abortion itself is first dealt with in a second century Jewish legal text quoted in the Mishna.

"If a woman is in hard labor (that threatens her life), one dismembers the fetus within her and removes it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life. Once the greater part of it emerges it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another."

With respect to non therapeutic abortions, the relevant literature is the Responsa--questions written to and responses written by rabbinical authorities from the 10th century to today. It is also here that a divergence in opinion begins to emerge. Such divergence is due initially to differing understandings of Maimonides' use of the pursuer argument, cited above. Later, in the 19th and 20th centuries, it becomes part and parcel of the diversity within Judaism itself as liberal streams of Jewish tradition and observance emerge. There are many relevant Responsa concerning abortion. In all of them, the principles are those described above. Note, however, how different understandings of these principles lead to different conclusions.

The first case concerns a child who is nursing and cannot survive without his mother's milk, being allergic to all other forms of nutrition. The mother, however, having become pregnant once again, sees that her milk has now ceased flowing. Here, where the issue is saving the life of a third party, as opposed to the pregnant woman herself, two different authorities mandate the performance of an abortion to save the life of the existing child.

Other cases emerge today as a result of a better understanding of mental health issues. The question is whether or not suicidal tendencies in a pregnant woman (tendencies that might, as a result of the pregnancy itself, impel the woman to take her own life), justify the performance of an abortion. In this case, even the most stringent of authorities permit an abortion to save the life of the pregnant woman.

In past centuries, many other circumstances have come before rabbinical authorities, as well. One case involved a woman whose pregnancy would leave her permanently deaf, and while some authorities rejected this as sufficient grounds for an abortion, no less an authority than a Chief Rabbi of Israel granted her permission.

In cases involving adultery, there is also a division of opinion. Some invoke the principle of "let the fruit of the act bear witness to the deed lest adultery flourish in the land." Others maintain that we must do everything possible to save the pregnant woman from great mental pain and anguish, shame being the greatest mental pain. And in several cases involving rape, this latter principle seems to dominate, with many authorities granting permission to take the steps necessary to ensure that a pregnancy will not result.

The majority of Jewish legal sources indicate that abortion is permissible at any stage of the pregnancy if the well-being of the pregnant woman is jeopardized. In cases of non-therapeutic abortion, then, the major consideration is "the pain of the mother." It is out of consideration for the woman involved, and not the fate or condition of the fetus, which becomes the determining factor in prohibiting or permitting an abortion


This is true of all streams of Judaism, orthodox, conservative AND reform!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I've been cybernating again; my apologies!

I quote from a book I have on the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to various medical issues by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:


"Judaism regards the killing of an unborn child to be a serious moral offense. An abortion may be performed only for the gravest of reasons, and even then, only subsequent to consultation with a competent [orthodox] rabbinic authority...The life of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn child. Thus, when 'hard travail' of labor endangers the life of the mother, an embryotomy may be performed in order to save her...The fetus' right to life is subordinate to that of the mother, and hence the life of the unborn fetus may be sacrificed in order to save her...The performance of an abortion may be warranted for purposes of preserving maternal health as well as maternal life. No [orthodox rabbinic] authority permits an abortion which is non-therapeutic in nature. There are early rabbinic authorities who expressly declare that ritual laws such as Sabbath observance and fasting on Yom Kippur are suspended in order to preserve the life of the fetus. Suspension of such significant religious observances is clearly incompatible with indiscriminate license to destroy fetal life. Both the argument that a prospective mother may seek an abortion for any reason because denial of this right would interfere with her 'right to privacy' as well as the argument that the decision to abort is entirely a matter between a woman and her physician must be rejected as incompatible with Jewish teaching...Judaism teaches that man does not enjoy unrestricted proprietary rights with regard to his own body, much less so with regard to the body of an unborn child...The Talmud teaches that embryo is endowed with a soul at conception. Moreover, the Sages taught: 'There are 3 partners in the generation of man - the father, the mother and God.' Accordingly, a decision to terminate pregnancy is not one which is within the exclusive domain of the mother...It is well established that the quality of life to be anticipated if the fetus is carried to term is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for the performance of an abortion...Physical or mental abnormalities do not affect the human status of the individual or his right to life...Most authorities rule that termination of pregnancy resulting from rape is not permissible. However, the immediate post-coital contraceptive measures undertaken prior to fertilization of the ovum present a different but complex Jewish-law question. Immediate removal of the semen by means of a suction device...would be warranted."

Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control.

Jewish law says that once the mother has begun to give birth, her life no longer takes precedence over the fetus & thus killing the fetus, even if ostensibly to save the mother, would, at this stage, be cold-blooded murder & thus absolutely forbidden. No orthodox rabbi would ever sanction an abortion if the mother has begun to give birth or if the doctors said that the fetus is viable, regardless of the mother's wishes.

We completely reject vigilante violence against doctors, nurses, etc. who are involved in abortions (as well as inciting to violence against them) & to bombing clinics. Opposition to non-therapeutic abortions must be carried out within the bounds of the law.

I quote from "Be Fruitful and Multiply: Fertility Therapy and the Jewish Tradition" by Dr. Richard V. Grazi (published by Genesis Jerusalem Press, 1994):


Nontransplanted embryos fertilized artificially in vitro have no standing as fetuses in Jewish law. Former Tel Aviv Chief Sefardi Rabbi David Halevi rules that "all eggs fertilized in vitro have no standing as embryos...and one may discard them if they were not chosen for implantation, as the law of abortion applies only to procedures in the womb...But in vitro, as was said, there is no prohibition at all."

A similar ruling is offered by former Chief Sefardi Rabbi of Israel Mordechai Eliyahu, who writes that, "all fertilized eggs which are destined to be implanted in the mother's womb should not be destroyed, as a live fetus will yet develop from them. But those eggs which have not been chosen for implantation may be discarded." Neither authority offers any detailed analysis of his legal ruling, apparently considering the position to be obvious and noncontroversial from the perspective of Jewish law and ethics. Indeed, Rabbi David J. Bleich has pointed out that...even an aborted fetus in the early stages of gestation does not require a funeral.

The latter excerpt is relevant to DW & I. We suffer from primary & wholly unexplained infertility. Dw has never become pregnant & the doctors here have no idea why. We have a few Frozen Stillsmallvoiceicles in the deep-freeze at one of the hospitals in Jerusalem. They're of poor quality & we're inclined to leave them there until they're no longer viable (if they ever were).

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Pitiricus]

Actually Orthodox Judaism absolutely embrace abortion if the birth could be a health problem for the woman... Even if it is a mental one!

As to during the birth, the moment the fetus becomes a human being is very well defined: either the head has emerged from the birth canal, or three quarter of the body if it is a breech birth. Until then, if you have to cut the fetus in pieces to save the life of the mother, it is perfectly accepted.