Halakha and Abortion

[Avi1001]

Your position is against traditional jewish law.

That law is that an unborn child is a human life. You are not allowed to kill an innocent human life. The only time you may do so is if the mother's life is in danger, then the unborn child is considered a rodoph, a pursuer, and can be killed.

Hi CMike, here is some new information for you. Reform Jews do not blindly follow all the Halacha. I am a reform Jew. I am mainly concerned with ethical and moral laws.

You views about unborn children are illogical and impractical. But as long as you do not have a pregnant girlfriend, it will be easy for you to maintain an illogical position.

 

[Avi1001]

OK, I did find a draft copy of my teshuvah, though I can't seem to find the final version. I gave this the once-over to see if I noted any mistakes, and it looked clean, but if there are any, that's why. I also did strip my real name out of it, but that's the only change I made. This should relatively accurately reflect my opinion, which I am happy to discuss further if there are questions.

Thank you for sharing this scholarly work, Levite. You are a very deep thinker.

Could you please explain your reasoning for choosing the first trimester as the final date ?

 

[Flankerl]

I don't care to read the 14 pages. Simply stating his position and why is as far as I go.

Thats stupid.

 

[Levite]

Thank you for sharing this scholarly work, Levite. You are a very deep thinker.

Could you please explain your reasoning for choosing the first trimester as the final date ?

I didn't choose it as the final date. I held that the first trimester was the time during which a woman should be able to choose abortion for herself, on her own authority, for reasons she deems serious. This is, as I noted, because the trimester mark doesn't fall too far from Rav Chisda's ruling that "until forty days [after the first missed menstrual period], it is merely fluid in her womb," and in combination with other sources, and Rambam's instruction that we may adjust our medical and scientific interpretations to allow for the Rabbis' not having had the same scientific and medical knowledge of later generations.

But I held that abortion is still to be permitted for indirectly life-threatening reasons after the first trimester, on consultation of the woman, her doctor, and her rabbi, until such time as the fetus is able to survive and thrive outside the womb, which is held in accordance with the sources in Mishnah Oholot and Tosefta Kritut and their sequelae, and the influence of both Mishnah and Gemara in Arachin. And after that, I held that abortion was not permissible, save in the gravest immediate and direct threat to the woman's life, which reflects the opinions presented by various major commentators and halachists.

 

[CMike]

Hi CMike, here is some new information for you. Reform Jews do not blindly follow all the Halacha. I am a reform Jew. I am mainly concerned with ethical and moral laws.

You views about unborn children are illogical and impractical. But as long as you do not have a pregnant girlfriend, it will be easy for you to maintain an illogical position.

Why should the unborn child be killed because of a pregnant girlfriend?

What did the unborn child do to deserve death?

 

[CMike]

Thats stupid.

I don't concur.

I know it will be to change jewish law to fit liberal beliefs.

I judge this based on his past history.

 

[CMike]

I didn't choose it as the final date. I held that the first trimester was the time during which a woman should be able to choose abortion for herself, on her own authority, for reasons she deems serious. This is, as I noted, because the trimester mark doesn't fall too far from Rav Chisda's ruling that "until forty days [after the first missed menstrual period], it is merely fluid in her womb," and in combination with other sources, and Rambam's instruction that we may adjust our medical and scientific interpretations to allow for the Rabbis' not having had the same scientific and medical knowledge of later generations.

But I held that abortion is still to be permitted for indirectly life-threatening reasons after the first trimester, on consultation of the woman, her doctor, and her rabbi, until such time as the fetus is able to survive and thrive outside the womb, which is held in accordance with the sources in Mishnah Oholot and Tosefta Kritut and their sequelae, and the influence of both Mishnah and Gemara in Arachin. And after that, I held that abortion was not permissible, save in the gravest immediate and direct threat to the woman's life, which reflects the opinions presented by various major commentators and halachists.

That is the big problem. You are trying to create your own jewish law, instead of following existing jewish law.

 

[Levite]

That is the big problem. You are trying to create your own jewish law, instead of following existing jewish law.

I am making psak halachah, based on previous sources and my interpretations of them. Just like rabbis do all the time. That is what poskim do.

You seem to want to ignore that there are major sources from Gemara and Rishonim that don't support your position, and which may support mine. This question is no different than many others in halachah, for which there are different schools of thought.

The Meiri, in his clarification of what is and is not shikul ha-da'at, notes that when the Torah says ha-shofet asher yihyeh bayamim hahem, that gives complete authority to decide cases at law to rabbis and dayanim in every generation: whether they do this by following majority precedents, minority views, da'atei yachid, or rule on their own authority.

You need to start differentiating between piskei halachah and interpretations with which you don't agree and those which have no basis, because they are not equivalent categories.

It's also worth noting the OP asked for Conservative opinions. If you don't agree with those, you didn't have to join this discussion.

 

[CMike]

So whose teshuvot did you read to decide this? Which sources went into your deciding that "an unborn child is a human life" is "traditional Jewish law?"

Clearly, those sources didn't include Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b, where he states flatly, in reference to the fetus, דכל זמן שלא יצא לאויר העולם, לאו נפש הוא ("The entire time it has not yet emerged into the air of the world, it is not a living soul"). Or Rav Chisda's opinion in Yevamot 69b, עד ארבעים מיא בעלמא היא ("Until the fortieth day [after the first missed menstrual period, confirming pregnancy], it is only fluid in her womb"). Or the opinion in Sanhedrin 84b, discussing Shmot 21:12 versus Bamidbar 35:30: ואיצטריך למיכתב מכה איש ואיצטריך למכתב כל מכה נפש, - דאי כתב רחמנא מכה איש ומת הוה אמינא: איש דבר מצוה - אין, קטן - לא. כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש. ואי כתב רחמנא כל מכה נפש הוה אמינא, אפילו נפלים, אפילו בן שמונה, צריכי. ("It was necessary to write 'who strikes a man' [Shmot 21:12] and it was necessary to write 'any who strike a living person,' because if the Torah had written only 'who strikes a man,' I might have concluded, [one who kills] 'a man' [that is,] of Bar Mitzvah age or better is culpable, [but one who kills] a minor is not culpable. And if the Torah had written only 'any who strike a living person' [Bamidbar 35:30], I might have concluded, even a lost fetus or a nonviable premature birth [are cases involving] capital culpability"). Or any of the other sources which I cited, that you chose to ignore.

Your position is not "traditional Jewish law," it is one position, one school of thought within traditional Jewish law. It's fine if you want to hold that way, but you can't say it's the only position or school of thought on the subject. There are others that are just as supportable. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them illegitimate.

If you don't want to take the time to read teshuvot and study the sources they use, fine. But in that case, you can hardly criticize the conclusions they come to.

Sorry but your position is a very left belief.

My position is traditional jewish law.

We can start out with the Ten Commandments. "Do not murder".

You are not allowed to kill an innocent human being.

Very early on an unborn child has a beating heart. It's a living being. You can't kill it according to jewish law because the unborn child is inconvenient.

What is the Torah's View on Abortion? - Questions & Answers

Abortion in Jewish Law - Audio Classes

Listen to the first five minutes of the link below. It's also in Parshah Noach. I think it's a very good dvar Torah on abortion.

YUTorah Online - Abortion (Rabbi Eli Belizon)

Abortion in Jewish Law

As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth.

In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer6 after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna,7 if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden.

Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.

6 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murder 1:9; Talmud Sanhedrin 72B
7 Oholos 7:6

Notice the above is exactly what I said.

You may notice that traditional judaism is very consistent.

Abortion is prohibited other than for the life of the mother.

 

[CMike]

I didn't choose it as the final date. I held that the first trimester was the time during which a woman should be able to choose abortion for herself, on her own authority, for reasons she deems serious. This is, as I noted, because the trimester mark doesn't fall too far from Rav Chisda's ruling that "until forty days [after the first missed menstrual period], it is merely fluid in her womb," and in combination with other sources, and Rambam's instruction that we may adjust our medical and scientific interpretations to allow for the Rabbis' not having had the same scientific and medical knowledge of later generations.

But I held that abortion is still to be permitted for indirectly life-threatening reasons after the first trimester, on consultation of the woman, her doctor, and her rabbi, until such time as the fetus is able to survive and thrive outside the womb, which is held in accordance with the sources in Mishnah Oholot and Tosefta Kritut and their sequelae, and the influence of both Mishnah and Gemara in Arachin. And after that, I held that abortion was not permissible, save in the gravest immediate and direct threat to the woman's life, which reflects the opinions presented by various major commentators and halachists.

By Rabbis it means the great sages of the time.

BTW I am responding to Avi who posted...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3535090-post14.html

 

[Levite]

By Rabbis it means the great sages of the time.

There is no precedent in halachah for stripping rabbis of their authority to psak din unless a sufficient mass of certain communities decide they have the authority. In fact, if you look at discussions of halachic authority in the Rishonim-- including the Meiri I cited-- there is ample evidence that they are presuming all rabbis, major, minor, and obscure, are judging questions. It's fairly ironic that you're criticizing me for rejecting tradition, when you are doing so yourself.

And while my opinion may or may not be "very left," it is a halachic opinion, with proofs and proper construction. You can certainly disagree with it, and you are certainly under no obligation to hold like I do, but you cannot question the legitimacy of my opinion as psak halachah, properly decided by a rabbi. You really conflate legitimacy with agreement, and the two are not the same. This is why the tradition is full of machlokot.

 

[CMike]

There is no precedent in halachah for stripping rabbis of their authority to psak din unless a sufficient mass of certain communities decide they have the authority. In fact, if you look at discussions of halachic authority in the Rishonim-- including the Meiri I cited-- there is ample evidence that they are presuming all rabbis, major, minor, and obscure, are judging questions. It's fairly ironic that you're criticizing me for rejecting tradition, when you are doing so yourself.

And while my opinion may or may not be "very left," it is a halachic opinion, with proofs and proper construction. You can certainly disagree with it, and you are certainly under no obligation to hold like I do, but you cannot question the legitimacy of my opinion as psak halachah, properly decided by a rabbi. You really conflate legitimacy with agreement, and the two are not the same. This is why the tradition is full of machlokot.

You are entitled to your beliefs.

My beef is that I want to make it clear it doesn't represent traditional judaism.

The job of a rabbi is to apply the law not create it.

Many jews aren't familar with the details of jewish law, that's when they go for a rabbi for answers. However, a rabbi should apply the law.

If you look hard enough you can make an argument for anything.

 

[Flankerl]

Very early on an unborn child has a beating heart.

Its actually three weeks after conception.

 

[Avi1001]

Why should the unborn child be killed because of a pregnant girlfriend?

What did the unborn child do to deserve death?

There is another argument that has not been made yet. I feel as a society we need to do a better job creating adoption options and encourage pregnant teens toward adoption, rather than abortion. It seems to me that this is really the desirable ethical and moral path.

 

[CMike]

There is another argument that has not been made yet. I feel as a society we need to do a better job creating adoption options and encourage pregnant teens toward adoption, rather than abortion. It seems to me that this is really the desirable ethical and moral path.

I agree with that.:yes:

 

[Levite]

You are entitled to your beliefs.

My beef is that I want to make it clear it doesn't represent traditional judaism.

The job of a rabbi is to apply the law not create it.

The job of a rabbi is to determine what is needful for Jews to live their lives in a holy, thoughtful way, informed by Torah and mitzvot, and mindful of their obligations under the covenant.

If that means applying the law as it stands, that is what a rabbi should do. If that means reinterpreting the law according to a different school of thought in the tradition, that is what a rabbi should do. And if that means occasionally having to make a completely new interpretation, based on reliable sources in the tradition, then that is what a rabbi should do. There is even room in the tradition for very occasional radical reinterpretation and novellae.

Our Rabbis went to great lengths to teach us and make for us a system that empowers rabbis and dayanim to make decisions for their communities, so they don't have to rely on once-in-a-lifetime leadership, or on halachot fixed and immutable in long ages past. They brilliantly created a living, thriving, evolving system to sustain us. And it trivializes what they did, and undermines their efforts, to attempt to freeze halachah permanently according to the psak din as it stood in some yeshivah in Poland 250 years ago, or to change only if one or two guys who wear the kind of streiml you like happen to decide we all need to be stricter.

 

[CMike]

When jewish law can mean anything, it really means nothing.

 

[Levite]

When jewish law can mean anything, it really means nothing.

It can't mean anything, and no one is claiming it can. You just don't like that it can mean something you disagree with.

 

[dantech]

Thanks, man.

Alright so I read it, and though you do make some good points, the sages who argue against it also make good arguments.

Opinions can go both ways, and you are entitled to yours. You didn't just say "Abortion is fine, so let's allow it!" No. You took the time to study up on the subject, and your educated decision is that it is indeed permitted.

I for one disagree with your opinion as my position lies on the other side. But that doesn't mean I don't understand where you are coming from, or that I don't respect your decision.

 

[Levite]

Alright so I read it, and though you do make some good points, the sages who argue against it also make good arguments.

Opinions can go both ways, and you are entitled to yours. You didn't just say "Abortion is fine, so let's allow it!" No. You took the time to study up on the subject, and your educated decision is that it is indeed permitted.

I for one disagree with your opinion as my position lies on the other side. But that doesn't mean I don't understand where you are coming from, or that I don't respect your decision.

That, my friend, is machloket l'shem shamayim. I offer nothing but respect for this post.