Abortion, Jewish Law, and the new Alabama law

[Ana_v]

Let me give you a little context. As my daytime job, I work as a preschool teacher at a Jewish preschool. It is part of a Chabad center, with a synogogue, run by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. For anyone not familiar with the Chabad movement, it is Hasidic movement that focuses on spreading Jewish awareness and outreach activities for Jews (of any background) to help them integrate Judaism into their lives. For example, my co-teacher’s husband runs a Kosher food truck at a university campus, and her brother is a Rabbi who runs a Chabad house at that university. Think of Catholic Newman Centers, for example, as something of an analogy.

Due to working alongside observant Jews (though I have some non- Jewish and non-Orthodox coworkers), I have learned a great deal about Judaism and often find myself researching various aspects of “Halacha”, the term used to refer to the comprehensive whole of Jewish law and practice.

One of the topics I am interested in is the Orthodox Jewish view on abortion, which is not as cut and dry as the Catholic view. But as a basic generality, abortion is prohibited. There is an important exception though, and that is where the mother’s life is in danger, in which case abortion is permitted, assuming that that the prudential judgment of a qualified Rabbi and medical expert have been sought. I am not sure if a Jewish woman is halachically required to abort in such a case, or if she is merely permitted to (I’ve read conflicting sources).

The Jews, like Catholics, have a notion of laws that apply specifically to them and those which apply to all humanity. We call it natural law. The Jews speak of “The Seven Laws of Noah” or “The Noachide Laws”, given to the children of Noah and their descendants (hence, the whole human race) and are considered universally-binding moral laws.

These “seven” laws are summary, but from them we can derive various others.

Among these laws: Do not murder.

This is where, in my opinion, the issue gets interesting. If the Torah was given to the Jews, and they were its custodians, and they had both written and oral tradition, then it makes a great deal of sense to defer to them on questions of morality. After all, they have a whole tradition for adjudicating matters of law.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church claims custodianship of the Scriptures, and the fullness of truth.

But, in regards to the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, the Church teaches it is knowable through human reason.

Theoretically then, it should be knowable through human reason that abortion is not permissible even to save the life of the mother. And theoretically, the principle of double effect should be knowable as the solution to a medical dilemna between the life of the mother and life of the child.

Why then, from a Catholic perspective, do the Jews not teach this? What explains such an obvious “moral failure” in their teaching, despite their long-standing tradition of rigorous moral and legal reasoning?

For some reference:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-View-on-Abortion.htm

 

[EZweber]

I am not familiar with Orthodox Jewish stances on current social issues since they agree with Catholics on many matters, but the simplest answer seems to be that Jews are not granted infallibility, and the Church is.

 

[Lavenderson]

Why then, from a Catholic perspective, do the Jews not teach this? What explains such an obvious “moral failure” in their teaching, despite their long-standing tradition of rigorous moral and legal reasoning?

If it is the case that Judaism allows for abortion in fringe cases (such as threat to the mother’s life), while Catholicism does not allow for it, then I can only deduce that a lack of absolute faith in God lies at the root of this moral failure of Judaism, which wouldn’t be the first time (cough Jesus Christ cough).

Abortion in the case of threat to the mother’s life, although an absolutely tragic dilemma, needs to follow the same logic as in the case of rape if faith in God is to remain absolute.

God is the Sole Author of life, not man. Even in the most tragic situations.

 

[BartholomewB]

You could check this out with your Hebrew-speaking coworkers at school, but I think it boils down to a question of language. The fifth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13) in Hebrew uses the verb ratsach (רצח) which means specifically “to murder”, rather than the much broader term “to kill”. Whether or not abortion qualifies as murder in Jewish religious law may vary from case to case. I’m sure a Chabad rabbi will know the answer.

BTW, it’s the fifth commandment in Catholic use but in Jewish use, if I’m not mistaken, it’s the sixth.

 

[Ana_v]

@Rabbi

What are your thoughts? Where have Catholics erred on the matter, as you see it? And please feel free to correct any misunderstandings or misrepresentations in my OP regarding Judaism and abortion.

 

[AlbMagno]

I always thought that (in Catholic moral) if the life of the mother is in danger, abortion is not permitted but taking the baby out of the womb (and try to make him/her stay alive, like a premature) is. That is what abortists usually call “abortion” in this case to attack us.

 

[meltzerboy2]

AFAIK, Orthodox Jews do not consider the unborn baby a fully developed person although it is human, whereas once the baby is born, it is regarded as a person (as well as human, of course) with equal rights to those of the mother. It is thought that at this moment of birth the soul enters the baby. Thus abortion is permitted, even required, by Orthodox Jews all the way up to the moment of birth if the mother’s life is threatened. Interestingly, the less Orthodox streams of Judaism (Conservative and Reform) do NOT require abortion in such a case, even though they are more lenient with regard to permitting abortion in cases where the physical life of the mother is not endangered (such as rape and incest), since in many such cases, the psychological well-being of the mother is. Still, even Reform Judaism does NOT permit abortion on demand. Orthodox Judaism itself is not exactly uniform in restricting abortion ONLY to the mother’s life being threatened: there are other POSSIBLE exceptions, including the severe deformity of the unborn baby, one baby threatening the life of another in cases of twin births, and even the psychological health of the mother due to rape or incest. Only the very strictest interpretation of Jewish law allows the mother’s physical life imperiled as the only exception. Rabbi can add to or correct what I have said.

 

[Ana_v]

I am not familiar with Orthodox Jewish stances on current social issues since they agree with Catholics on many matters, but the simplest answer seems to be that Jews are not granted infallibility, and the Church is.

But we can easily see how, for the purposes of public policy, this line of reasoning would fail to persuade voters or lawmakers.

“We can be assured that the Catholic Church is correct in its teaching that abortion is intrinsically immoral and is therefore, without exception, never permissible because the Holy Spirit has given the Church the charism of infallibility.”

To believe that the Church is infallilible requires an act of faith.

But we live in a pluralistic society, governed by a secular state. Given these circumstances, the basis for public policy must be those truths which are knowable through human reason.

Problem is, for many, many people (including prolifers), it is not evident that abortion is always and everywhere wrong. The common intuition is that there is at least one exception: where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy.

"In present state law, Section 13A-6-1, Code of Alabama 1975, defines a person for homicide purposes to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability…

Section 3. As used in this act, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) ABORTION. The use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device with the intent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. The term does not include these activities if done with the intent to save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child, remove a dead unborn child, to deliver the unborn child prematurely to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother, or to preserve the health of her unborn child. The term does not include a procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy, nor does it include the procedure or act to terminate the pregnancy of a woman when the unborn child has a lethal anomaly.

(2) ECTOPIC PREGNANCY. Any pregnancy resulting from either a fertilized egg that has implanted or attached outside the uterus or a fertilized egg implanted inside the cornu of the uterus.

(3) LETHAL ANOMALY. A condition from which an unborn child would die after birth or shortly thereafter or be stillborn.

(4) MEDICAL EMERGENCY. A condition which, in reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the pregnant woman that her pregnancy must be terminated to avoid a serious health risk as defined in this act."

Alabama abortion law passes: Read the bill

Here's the text of the abortion ban bill passed by the Alabama Legislature.

www.al.com

 

[Ana_v]

The fifth commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13) in Hebrew uses the verb ratsach (רצח) which means specifically “to murder”, rather than the much broader term “to kill”. Whether or not abortion qualifies as murder in Jewish religious law may vary from case to case.

This is where the distinction between “human life” and “human person” is relevant.

From a Christian perspective, in order for killing to be “murder”, the victim must be a human person.

How is person defined in the Christian tradition? Answer: “An individual substance of a rational nature.”

Many pro-lifers show dismay when they hear pro-choicers deny personhood status to an embryo or fetus, accusing them of “denying their humanity”.

But it’s not necessarily the case that they’re denying biological humanity.

In point of fact, there is within the Christian tradition, a theological/philosophical “equivalent” to the personhood debate between pro-lifers and prochoicers.

It’s called delayed-hominization or “ensoulment”.

When does God infuse a rational soul in the human organism? Today it is popular among lay Catholics to believe that it happens at conception. But, as far as I’m aware, it is an open question and the Church does not definitively teach when.

The implication of this is that it is theoretically possible for an abortion in this or that circumstance, to not be an act of murder. It would still be a moral evil, not because it is murder, but because, like contraception, it contravenes a process naturally ordered to procreation and development of a human person.

In other words, if the rational soul is not infused at conception, but at a later time, and a woman has an abortion prior to the ensoulment of the embryonic or fetal body, then her moral transgression is somewhere between the gravity of contraception and the gravity of murder. We just don’t have a name for it (as far as I’m aware).

 

[Ana_v]

"This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field…

From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder."

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), no.19, 13.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

 

[EZweber]

But we can easily see how, for the purposes of public policy, this line of reasoning would fail to persuade voters or lawmakers.

I agree that my argument is extremely unlikely to convince in the public sphere. However, the argument I responded to is also unlikely to convince. I believe that it was sufficiently refuted. In the public sphere, unless universal assent to a faith is given, arguments based on the fact that a certain faith teaches something cannot be used. We must use natural law.

 

[Rabbi]

As meltzerboy2 has said, we view abortion as wrong, that is, unless the mother’s life is threatened.

 

[Ana_v]

As meltzerboy2 has said, we view abortion as wrong, that is, unless the mother’s life is threatened

Wrong for a Jewish woman to procure an abortion, or for any woman to do so?

And, as an Orthodox Jew, are you required to support public policy that is reflective of your moral stance on abortion (i.e. “Abortion is wrong and therefore should be outlawed”), or can one be considered a faithful and righteous Jew irrespective of what he thinks the legal status of abortion should be?

I ask because, in Catholicism, as I’m sure you’ve noticed on CAF, there is an expectation for a Catholic to be not only personally opposed to abortion, but also to be opposed to it in public policy.

 

[AlNg]

it should be knowable through human reason that abortion is not permissible even to save the life of the mother.

I am not sure that I see that. “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply in every case according to Roman Catholic teaching. For example, in time of a just war a soldier is allowed to kill an enemy soldier in self defense on the battlefield. Now does not the enemy soldier have the right to life? There are people here on CAF who have defended the dropping of the A Bomb on japan, even though many innocent children were killed. Did not those innocent children have the right to their lives? Are Catholics pro-life for the enemy soldier in times of war? Or will they defend themselves against an unjust aggressor. Generally, I would not see an embryo as an unjust aggressor, even in the case when a woman’s life is at stake, because generally the child was conceived in love and hope. However, consider the case when the woman is raped, and brutally beaten, and the seed was planted by the rapist out of hate and brutality and the woman’s life is now at stake. She has been brutally beaten by the rapist and the doctors say that she could not survive the ordeal of a pregnancy. In such a case, would the woman be wrong to invoke the rule of self-defense to save her life by terminating the pregnancy which was forced upon her and if allowed to continue would surely result in her death?

 

[EZweber]

I have not heard the what the official Catholic teaching is on this, so I could be wrong, but a child who, through no fault of his own, is a threat to a woman’s life is very different. With my understanding, an abortion, per se, is never moral because the immediate end of an abortion is always the death of an innocent person. I have heard that there is a much more common case in which there is no abortion, again per se, but damaged tissue is removed, which results in the unintended but foreseen death of the baby.

 

[claudine]

Lavenderson, you have ‘deduced’ wrongly about the Jews regarding the strength and courage of their faith.

Have a look at the first words they are to utter when their loved ones die and at their prayers during grief. Basically Gam zu la tova = All is for the Best. Followed by, my loose translation, “Hashem knows what he is doing in all things, even this.”

meltzerboy2:

 

[Brendan]

I am not sure that I see that. “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply in every case according to Roman Catholic teaching. For example, in time of a just war a soldier is allowed to kill an enemy soldier in self defense on the battlefield. Now does not the enemy soldier have the right to life? There are people here on CAF who have defended the dropping of the A Bomb on japan, even though many innocent children were killed. Did not those innocent children have the right to their lives?

In all of those, the intent is really not to cause the death of the other person. If the enemy solider was wounded instead of being killed, would the attacking solider have the obligation to kill the wounded man ( as it would be if the intent was to kill the solider) or offer aid? In the case of the A-bomb, if the child survived, but the military objective was achieved, would the Army Air Corp have been disappointed or pleased.

THAT is the distinction with double-effect, that the undesired effect is just that, not desired.

In the case of abortion, the death of the child is the specific intent, it is the actual purpose of the act. In that sense, it is no different from a solider targeting a child, instead of targeting an enemy combatant, and accidently hitting a child. One is (quite rightly) a war crime, the other is an unattended consequence.

In the case of a life threating pregnancy, it is morally required that the physician remember that there are TWO patients involved, and it is always morally incorrect to seek the death of one them.

 

[EZweber]

As far as the A bomb goes, I think that we went too far and too quickly. We should have at least told them what was in store. Our unconditional surrender policy did a lot of harm in World War ll. If we had been willing to relax it, the war might have been over much sooner with much less bloodshed.

 

[Ana_v]

I am not sure that I see that.

That is exactly my point. It is not
self-evident to people that abortion is intrinsically wrong. That’s why, even among those who oppose “abortion on demand”, exceptions are stipulated. There is debate as to what the extent of those exceptions should be, but the idea of and support for exceptions is commonplace.

Catholics are in the minority position of holding that there are no exceptions to the unlawfulness of abortion.

"Thou shalt not kill” does not apply in every case according to Roman Catholic teaching

True.

But there is a version of that prohibition which does apply in every case, according to Catholic teaching:

It is never licit to intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being.

Are Catholics pro-life for the enemy soldier in times of war? Or will they defend themselves against an unjust aggressor. Generally, I would not see an embryo as an unjust aggressor, even in the case when a woman’s life is at stake, because generally the child was conceived in love and hope. However, consider the case when the woman is raped, and brutally beaten, and the seed was planted by the rapist out of hate and brutality and the woman’s life is now at stake. She has been brutally beaten by the rapist and the doctors say that she could not survive the ordeal of a pregnancy. In such a case, would the woman be wrong to invoke the rule of self-defense to save her life by terminating the pregnancy which was forced upon her and if allowed to continue would surely result in her death

Here is the stock answer:

A woman is permitted to fight an unjust aggressor, even if if means using lethal force.

It is an open question whether she can intend the death of the aggressor as a means for saving her life, but it is established that she can use lethal force to preserve her life.

If she has access to a firearm, she can shoot him in the head to stop him. But since she doesn’t have civil authority, as a police officer does, for example, it is debated whether she can intend to kill him when she harms him.

In the case of the unborn child, he is never regarded as an unjust aggressor, even if his conception was the consequence of unjust aggression (rape).

 

[Ana_v]

In the case of a life threating pregnancy, it is morally required that the physician remember that there are TWO patients involved, and it is always morally incorrect to seek the death of one them

I agree with you. However, let us consider what our Jewish interlocutors might say:

From the article cited in my OP:

"The first reference to abortion is in Genesis, when Noah and his descendants are forbidden to murder: “One who sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of G‑d He made man.”…Rabbi Ishmael learns that under ordinary circumstances the killing of a fetus is considered a capital offense for all descendants of Noah, i.e., humankind. Read in isolation, one could conclude that abortion is akin to murder. But things are not so simple. Here is what we read in Exodus:

“Should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarried but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders].”

Since the Torah obligates only a monetary compensation but no capital punishment, the Torah seemingly views the fetus as property, not as a human life."