Abortion in Israel

[Rock_Happy]

I am in Israel studying obstetrics. It was recommended that I go to Ireland, but I wanted to spend some time in this part of the world.

They decide who gets an abortion here by committee. There are specific standards to be applied, but in practice it is a rubber stamps of approval. The rejection rate is almost exactly 1% of the 20,000 or so annual requests.

I am told that there are sections of the Torah which liken the killing of a fetus in the womb to murder, but also a section which likens a fetus in the first 40 days to water, but that the fetus is considered viable at the start of the second trimester.

As in the US, the conservative religious folks here oppose abortion, and the more liberal see it as a civil liberies, or “choice” issue.

 

[elvisman]

I am in Israel studying obstetrics. It was recommended that I go to Ireland, but I wanted to spend some time in this part of the world.

They decide who gets an abortion here by committee. There are specific standards to be applied, but in practice it is a rubber stamps of approval. The rejection rate is almost exactly 1% of the 20,000 or so annual requests.

I am told that there are sections of the Torah which liken the killing of a fetus in the womb to murder, but also a section which likens a fetus in the first 40 days to water, but that the fetus is considered viable at the start of the second trimester.

As in the US, the conservative religious folks here oppose abortion, and the more liberal see it as a civil liberies, or “choice” issue.

Yes, I always marvel at the relativist who refers to the “baby” in her womb when she wants it to the “fetus” or “non-viable blob of tissue” when she doesn’t.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am in Israel studying obstetrics. It was recommended that I go to Ireland, but I wanted to spend some time in this part of the world.

They decide who gets an abortion here by committee. There are specific standards to be applied, but in practice it is a rubber stamps of approval. The rejection rate is almost exactly 1% of the 20,000 or so annual requests.

I am told that there are sections of the Torah which liken the killing of a fetus in the womb to murder, but also a section which likens a fetus in the first 40 days to water, but that the fetus is considered viable at the start of the second trimester.

As in the US, the conservative religious folks here oppose abortion, and the more liberal see it as a civil liberies, or “choice” issue.

Torah (Orthodox) Judaism’s view on abortion is that if a woman’s life is endangered by continuing her pregnancy then her unborn child MUST be terminated. This is not a matter of choice. There are also leniencies, including the cases of rape and incest. Otherwise, abortion is not permitted according to Torah Judaism. The reason for the exemption concerning the mother’s life is based on the definition of life as a human being as stated in Genesis, in which G-d infused the body of Adam with a soul only AFTER He created him from the earth. Thus abortion is required in this circumstance even during late-term pregnancy.

 

[valentino]

I expect that abortion was viewed differently in old testament times than it is today among most Jews.There are few orthodox Jews in comparison to the whole.Even orthodox Jews view things different from the pre-Christ Jews.

 

[Sam_777]

but also a section which likens a fetus in the first 40 days to water,

Interesting indeed, their 40 days law is similar to Islam!, probably Muhammed copied that from the Jews:

Days 0-40: Abortion allowed.
Days 40-120: Abortion allowed only because of serious illness.
Days 120 and above: Abortion is not allowed at all and is considered a mortal sin.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Yes, I always marvel at the relativist who refers to the "baby" in her womb when she wants it to the “fetus” or “non-viable blob of tissue” when she doesn’t.

Elvisman, Imagine the phone call from the wife who has gone to doctor to verify her preganancy "darling we’re having a baby!!!) excitement the baby is wanted so its not even “fetus” you see “darling we’re having a fetus” doesnt quite make it. Alternatively, when a baby isnt wanted its a bunch of cells, or even a “product of conception” or ev en “tissue” none of these bring image to mind of “baby” I would even suggest that unless both husband and wife are medics and might say “fetus” even foetus does not being image of “Baby” to mind. So as long as it remains meaninless word then abortion is countenanced, its only later that that “tissue” will become a reality called baby. This when a wanted child is expected.
Keep well GA

 

[Grace_Angel]

Torah (Orthodox) Judaism’s view on abortion is that if a woman’s life is endangered by continuing her pregnancy then her unborn child MUST be terminated. This is not a matter of choice. There are also leniencies, including the cases of rape and incest. Otherwise, abortion is not permitted according to Torah Judaism. The reason for the exemption concerning the mother’s life is based on the definition of life as a human being as stated in Genesis, in which G-d infused the body of Adam with a soul only AFTER He created him from the earth. Thus abortion is required in this circumstance even during late-term pregnancy.

Have the Rabbis who would Ok a late term abortion heard of post abortion grief and trauma? Have they heard of the gruesome abortion procedure where the infant is killed whilst wiggling its little body. There is no reason today that a woman’s life would be endangered during pregnancy at least not in first world countries, so there is NO reason for abortion. abortion simply means the killing of an infant nothing else. And a woman is not designed to kill or have her infant killed and still remain unhurt.
Late term pregnancy is “infantcide” because an infant even at 24 weeks gestation can be saved if given all the assistance possible. Late term abortion means infanticide.
we cannot possibly permit infanticide though its the next thing to be legalised following the almost global legalisation of abortion.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am in Israel studying obstetrics. It was recommended that I go to Ireland, but I wanted to spend some time in this part of the world.

They decide who gets an abortion here by committee. There are specific standards to be applied, but in practice it is a rubber stamps of approval. The rejection rate is almost exactly 1% of the 20,000 or so annual requests.

I am told that there are sections of the Torah which liken the killing of a fetus in the womb to murder, but also a section which likens a fetus in the first 40 days to water, but that the fetus is considered viable at the start of the second trimester.

As in the US, the conservative religious folks here oppose abortion, and the more liberal see it as a civil liberies, or “choice” issue.

This kind of procedure for allowing abortion is pretty common - we used to have a similar system in Canada. The idea was that the person who wanted the abortion had to show that there was a real threat to life.

But also similarly, in the period before the law was struck down, the committee became a rubber stamp. What I think this shows is that enacting laws to restrict abortion isn’t really worth a lot alone. If most people believe it is acceptable they will find a way around the law. It is important to change most people’s minds, so that any legislation is actually effective. (It makes it a heck of a lot easier to get laws as well.)

 

[meltzerboy]

Have the Rabbis who would Ok a late term abortion heard of post abortion grief and trauma? Have they heard of the gruesome abortion procedure where the infant is killed whilst wiggling its little body. There is no reason today that a woman’s life would be endangered during pregnancy at least not in first world countries, so there is NO reason for abortion. abortion simply means the killing of an infant nothing else. And a woman is not designed to kill or have her infant killed and still remain unhurt.
Late term pregnancy is “infantcide” because an infant even at 24 weeks gestation can be saved if given all the assistance possible. Late term abortion means infanticide.
we cannot possibly permit infanticide though its the next thing to be legalised following the almost global legalisation of abortion.

Obviously I can’t speak for any individual Rabbi. Yes, this procedure would be very rare; but it is still required to save the mother’s life. Just as the death penalty is “on the (Holy) books” in rare cases (since the Torah threshold for proving guilt is so high, including two eyewitnesses and so on), abortion is too in this exceptional case.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Obviously I can’t speak for any individual Rabbi. Yes, this procedure would be very rare; but it is still required to save the mother’s life. Just as the death penalty is “on the (Holy) books” in rare cases (since the Torah threshold for proving guilt is so high, including two eyewitnesses and so on), abortion is too in this exceptional case.

Abortion is abortion is killing. is intentional killing. and I dont remember any place in the Holy Book especially in the Tablets of the Law which says “thou shalt not kill except…” My understanding is that it says “thou shalt not kill.”
It doesnt matter if this procedure is “rare” one only procedure is still the intentional killing of a human being who was initiated by G-d . G-d made no exceptions. and why need there be two witnesses when at the instant of conception only G-d was witness?
Did G-d not know that this late term infant would endanger the mother? Did G-d set the ground work for this child to be killed? No. This is how the slippery slope begins. with exceptions.
And as far as the “hard” cases eg. rape, incest, handicap etc. how did that child who is conceived sin? Plant a seed in fertile ground and it will grow no matter who planted the seed. If the seed was a lotus flower a lotus flower will bloom and not a weed. So how is the child of rape, incest etc to be blamed and killed because of the act of its father?
its brother? its grandfather? its uncle?
Again the slippery slope begins because of the exceptions. G-d is G-d of life. all life and not as we (including Rabbis and Mishna) would see it The question is. Is life under the authority of G-d or not? If so He must be aware of the life that He permits to be engendered so why would He permit a life to be engendered in order to be killed?

 

[meltzerboy]

Abortion is abortion is killing. is intentional killing. and I dont remember any place in the Holy Book especially in the Tablets of the Law which says “thou shalt not kill except…” My understanding is that it says “thou shalt not kill.”
It doesnt matter if this procedure is “rare” one only procedure is still the intentional killing of a human being who was initiated by G-d . G-d made no exceptions. and why need there be two witnesses when at the instant of conception only G-d was witness?
Did G-d not know that this late term infant would endanger the mother? Did G-d set the ground work for this child to be killed? No. This is how the slippery slope begins. with exceptions.
And as far as the “hard” cases eg. rape, incest, handicap etc. how did that child who is conceived sin? Plant a seed in fertile ground and it will grow no matter who planted the seed. If the seed was a lotus flower a lotus flower will bloom and not a weed. So how is the child of rape, incest etc to be blamed and killed because of the act of its father?
its brother? its grandfather? its uncle?
Again the slippery slope begins because of the exceptions. G-d is G-d of life. all life and not as we (including Rabbis and Mishna) would see it The question is. Is life under the authority of G-d or not? If so He must be aware of the life that He permits to be engendered so why would He permit a life to be engendered in order to be killed?

For the same reason G-d permits a child to be born with a horrible genetic defect, such as a hole in the heart or without a brain, because of which the child dies shortly after birth, causing the parents grief and anguish. The answer is we humans don’t understand the mysterious ways of G-d. You quote one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” The Hebrew translation of the word “kill” is murder. However, self-defense is not usually regarded as murder; otherwise, war–which involves intentional killing–would always be unjustified. In the case of saving the mother’s life by killing the unborn child, this action is considered self-defense to protect the mother from dying. It is not a slippery slope for Orthodox Judaism since this branch is quite adamant regarding the do’s and don’ts of behavior. For the rest of society, which do not live according to Torah Law, it may be different. The two eyewitnesses I referred to apply to carrying out the death penalty, not to abortion.

 

[Grace_Angel]

For the same reason G-d permits a child to be born with a horrible genetic defect, such as a hole in the heart or without a brain, because of which the child dies shortly after birth, causing the parents grief and anguish. The answer is we humans don’t understand the mysterious ways of G-d. You quote one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” The Hebrew translation of the word “kill” is murder. However, self-defense is not usually regarded as murder; otherwise, war–which involves intentional killing–would always be unjustified. In the case of saving the mother’s life by killing the unborn child, this action is considered self-defense to protect the mother from dying. It is not a slippery slope for Orthodox Judaism since this branch is quite adamant regarding the do’s and don’ts of behavior. For the rest of society, which do not live according to Torah Law, it may be different. The two eyewitnesses I referred to apply to carrying out the death penalty, not to abortion.

“self-defense to protect the mother from dying.” So who deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of the vulnerable child who depends on its mother and father to protect it and not ensure its death.
It is a slippery slope and it is thus whether Jewish Catholic or whatever. It is slippery slope. What is the difference between mother’s life and the life of the infant except size and voice. It is slippery slope. It is either “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not kill except…” added to that we might add whatever we like.
The abortion history we have today (about 30-40,000,000 pa) is thus because of the slippery slope begun with we will accept abortion because…
Sorry no matter which way it is couched abortion is the killing of an infant…intentionally.
OH by the way, the grief of a cbeing being born and dying via any means…illness/accident/etc (horrible as it is) is not the same as the grief experienced by those who abort. This type of grief is guilt ridden, shame ridden, anguish ridden, and this is so because it is a type of “disenfranchised grief” a grief which cannot be spoken about and which leads to mental health issues irrespective how it is couched.
Today we have a grief pervading contemporary society and this grief is the grief of the woman weeping for her child who is no more.

 

[meltzerboy]

“self-defense to protect the mother from dying.” So who deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of the vulnerable child who depends on its mother and father to protect it and not ensure its death.
It is a slippery slope and it is thus whether Jewish Catholic or whatever. It is slippery slope. What is the difference between mother’s life and the life of the infant except size and voice. It is slippery slope. It is either “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not kill except…” added to that we might add whatever we like.
The abortion history we have today (about 30-40,000,000 pa) is thus because of the slippery slope begun with we will accept abortion because…
Sorry no matter which way it is couched abortion is the killing of an infant…intentionally.
OH by the way, the grief of a cbeing being born and dying via any means…illness/accident/etc (horrible as it is) is not the same as the grief experienced by those who abort. This type of grief is guilt ridden, shame ridden, anguish ridden, and this is so because it is a type of “disenfranchised grief” a grief which cannot be spoken about and which leads to mental health issues irrespective how it is couched.
Today we have a grief pervading contemporary society and this grief is the grief of the woman weeping for her child who is no more.

As I noted in my first post, the Torah deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of her unborn child, because G-d infused Adam with a soul only after He created his body. Therefore, the unborn child is not yet regarded as a human being with a soul. Even though the unborn child’s life is highly important, the life does not yet achieve the fully human status of the mother’s life. This is Torah teaching, which distinguishes between the unborn and the born. It is not based on biology, logic, philosophy, or other religious teaching. The Torah consists of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible and is believed by Orthodox Jews to be given by G-d directly to Moses. Therefore, it is for Orthodox Jews the ultimate authority since it is considered the Word of G-d. Abortion is the killing of the unborn child, but it is not regarded by Torah Jews as murder.

Surely there are other types of grief that are comparable to the grief which may be suffered by a woman who undergoes an abortion. To name but a few, the grief of a parent whose child commits suicide (also filled with shame and guilt and a taboo subject to talk about), the grief of a mother whose child is born with a debilitating disease which may be due to the lifestyle of the mother when she was pregnant (likewise guilt-ridden grief), the grief of a parent whose child is raped and murdered (in this instance, the parent may feel they failed to protect their child). Please, let us not discount grief in its many forms, or rank one grief as more profound or devastating than another. Yes, abortion on demand is terrible; it should not be used as a means of birth control. But the religious perspective of Torah Judaism is what it is; this view does not threaten the teaching of Catholicism and I contend it does not lead to a slippery slope within the Orthodox Jewish community.

 

[Grace_Angel]

As I noted in my first post, the Torah deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of her unborn child, because G-d infused Adam with a soul only after He created his body. Therefore, the unborn child is not yet regarded as a human being with a soul. Even though the unborn child’s life is highly important, the life does not yet achieve the fully human status of the mother’s life. This is Torah teaching, which distinguishes between the unborn and the born. It is not based on biology, logic, philosophy, or other religious teaching. The Torah consists of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible and is believed by Orthodox Jews to be given by G-d directly to Moses. Therefore, it is for Orthodox Jews the ultimate authority since it is considered the Word of G-d. Abortion is the killing of the unborn child, but it is not regarded by Torah Jews as murder.

Surely there are other types of grief that are comparable to the grief which may be suffered by a woman who undergoes an abortion. To name but a few, the grief of a parent whose child commits suicide (also filled with shame and guilt and a taboo subject to talk about), the grief of a mother whose child is born with a debilitating disease which may be due to the lifestyle of the mother when she was pregnant (likewise guilt-ridden grief), the grief of a parent whose child is raped and murdered (in this instance, the parent may feel they failed to protect their child). Please, let us not discount grief in its many forms, or rank one grief as more profound or devastating than another. Yes, abortion on demand is terrible; it should not be used as a means of birth control. But the religious perspective of Torah Judaism is what it is; this view does not threaten the teaching of Catholicism and I contend it does not lead to a slippery slope within the Orthodox Jewish community.

"As I noted in my first post, the Torah deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of her unborn child, because G-d infused Adam with a soul only after He created his body. Therefore, the unborn child is not yet regarded as a human being with a soul. Even though the unborn child’s life is highly important, the life does not yet achieve the fully human status of the mother’s life. This is Torah teaching, which distinguishes between the unborn and the born. "
And hence the reason we have abortion to 40 weeks gestation. this thought is the reason we have infaticide. this thought is the thought that has ensured that abortion has become globally legalised. There is no other discussion which can ensue from this because this says that it is the matter of size which is most important and not “soul” created by G-d. this has left the door wide open for what we have today.
And understanding the nature of grief would tell you that grief is different. Yes there is an approximation of abortion grief to suicide grief of those left behind but still a mother or father did not take the child to be killed like in abortion.
“Before you were born I know you” Jeremiah 1:1-4. I will never forget you I have carved you on the palm of my hand Issaih 49:16 and further “And now Yahweh has spoken , who formed me in the womb to be His servant” Issaih 49:5. and so on.
It seems selective theology to me. and further it seems the theology of males who do not carry the child in the womb.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

For the same reason G-d permits a child to be born with a horrible genetic defect, such as a hole in the heart or without a brain, because of which the child dies shortly after birth, causing the parents grief and anguish. The answer is we humans don’t understand the mysterious ways of G-d. You quote one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill.” The Hebrew translation of the word “kill” is murder. However, self-defense is not usually regarded as murder; otherwise, war–which involves intentional killing–would always be unjustified. In the case of saving the mother’s life by killing the unborn child, this action is considered self-defense to protect the mother from dying. It is not a slippery slope for Orthodox Judaism since this branch is quite adamant regarding the do’s and don’ts of behavior. For the rest of society, which do not live according to Torah Law, it may be different. The two eyewitnesses I referred to apply to carrying out the death penalty, not to abortion.

The child is a human being that has a defect, he/she is not a defective. God might permit a tragedy, but He also gave (mankind) enough intelligence to figure out and prevent it if is preventable. If a certain medicine causes a birth defect then it should be discontinue. And if it unpreventable “a horrible genetic defect” that child’s life and death still has some profound meaning that touches the lives around it. Even in a tragedy God gives that life meaning.

In war the enemy is cognate of their actions, and they want to kill the other side, so a soldier has a right to self-defense. But a fetus does not will to kill, and under normal circumstance a pregnancy poses no harm to a mother, but not all are like that and more important to understand that the mother-child are both involved in a complicate pregnancy. It’s not child vs. mother. And some of the times the mother are given odds about a pregnancy going wrong, and there are some mothers willing to brave it out. I don’t see the connection between war and a complicated pregnancy, unless you bring up a soldier who takes a bullet for another soldier. In which case both the soldier and the mother are willing to spare their lives for another.

 

[Kaninchen]

As I noted in my first post, the Torah deems the life of the mother more valuable than that of her unborn child, because G-d infused Adam with a soul only after He created his body. Therefore, the unborn child is not yet regarded as a human being with a soul. Even though the unborn child’s life is highly important, the life does not yet achieve the fully human status of the mother’s life. This is Torah teaching, which distinguishes between the unborn and the born. It is not based on biology, logic, philosophy, or other religious teaching. The Torah consists of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible and is believed by Orthodox Jews to be given by G-d directly to Moses. Therefore, it is for Orthodox Jews the ultimate authority since it is considered the Word of G-d. Abortion is the killing of the unborn child, but it is not regarded by Torah Jews as murder.

Actually, Exodus 21:22-23 is clear - the death of the mother would be part of the usual recompense system, the death of the unborn wouldn’t. Meanwhile, to Christians, a soul conceived in Original Sin is in peril because unbaptized - since we don’t believe in Original Sin . . . .

Jews and Christians have been rowing about this for 2000 years and it’s never going to be resolved. I’ve often wondered if it was one of the reasons why medicine was one of the professions that was open to Jews in the Middle Ages, by the way.

 

[Grace_Angel]

Actually, Exodus 21:22-23 is clear - the death of the mother would be part of the usual recompense system, the death of the unborn wouldn’t. Meanwhile, to Christians, a soul conceived in Original Sin is in peril because unbaptized - since we don’t believe in Original Sin . . . .

Jews and Christians have been rowing about this for 2000 years and it’s never going to be resolved. I’ve often wondered if it was one of the reasons why medicine was one of the professions that was open to Jews in the Middle Ages, by the way.

then Jeremiah 1:1-4 isnt important I guess. God must have been imagining the individual and not real “before you were born I know you” I wonder who goes further back God, Jew or Christians. And I wonder how we interpret (all of us) according to our own agenda.

 

[Kaninchen]

then Jeremiah 1:1-4 isnt important I guess. God must have been imagining the individual and not real “before you were born I know you” I wonder who goes further back God, Jew or Christians. And I wonder how we interpret (all of us) according to our own agenda.

I think it’s important to understand, on both sides, that the positions taken on matters like this haven’t been conjured up for modern convenience.

 

[Grace_Angel]

I think it’s important to understand, on both sides, that the positions taken on matters like this haven’t been conjured up for modern convenience.

No modern convenience has simply taken these sides and capitalised on them to legalise the killing of human beings in various stages of development. And modern conveniences have sanitised and sterilised the conditions to so and indeed modern convenience also determines we “all” pay for these inconveniences.

 

[Kaninchen]

No modern convenience has simply taken these sides and capitalised on them to legalise the killing of human beings in various stages of development. And modern conveniences have sanitised and sterilised the conditions to so and indeed modern convenience also determines we “all” pay for these inconveniences.

Some of the most unpleasant arguments that take place on message boards often take place not between those who disagree wildly but between those who disagree just a bit. That Judaism and Catholicism disagree on the question of the precedence of the life of the mother is just something that both sides have to acknowledge - neither side is going to change its position and we’re not going to do so even if a difference on a narrow criteria is being blamed for the entire abortion problem throughout the world.