Abortion, Jewish Law, and the new Alabama law

[EZweber]

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."

I have heard this argument, but the case is not an intentional taking of human life. It is accidental. I would guess that the punishment would be much more severe if it was intentional.

 

[ATraveller]

I am not sure that I see that. “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply in every case according to Roman Catholic teaching.

It’s supposed to be “murder” not “kill” if we’re to translate ancient Hebrew properly. I don’t know why it was the latter in Latin.

 

[AlNg]

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).

What if the rapist intended his seed to be an unjust aggressor and cause harm or death to his victim? And if the intention of the victim is to save her own life so that she may be a mother to her four children.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You haven’t mentioned how her life is in danger. Anyways the seed on its own isn’t a separate life form yet so that’s apples to oranges.

 

[AlNg]

You haven’t mentioned how her life is in danger.

Her life is in danger because she has been weakened by the severe and brutal beating by the rapist and the doctor says that in her weakened condition she could not survive the ordeal of a pregnancy.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It is worth investigating to see if other options are available and she still has some time to recover some strength.

 

[AlNg]

It is worth investigating to see if other options are available and she still has some time to recover some strength.

All other options have been investigated and the doctors have concluded that if she does not terminate her pregnancy, both she and her unborn will surely die.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I had a good chuckle over that one.

 

[Ana_v]

I have heard this argument, but the case is not an intentional taking of human life. It is accidental. I would guess that the punishment would be much more severe if it was intentional.

Yes, the verse suggests a scenario in which a pregnant woman is accidentally stricken, resulting in the death of the child. But even so, the language of the verse doesn’t seem to imply the seriousness of manslaughter. Clearly, some wrong is being committed, otherwise restitution wouldn’t be demanded. But the passage doesn’t seem to bear out the seriousness of manslaughter. For comparison, in our judicial system in the U.S., involuntary manslaughter is a type of criminal homicide.

Let’s look at the verse again:

"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.

But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:22-25)

What’s interesting is that causing a miscarriage only carries an undefined monetary fine, whereas causing injury to the woman carries the penalty of lex talionis.

There’s a caveat though. I did a little bit of research into this passage and discovered that there is some debate as to whether the Hebrew word translated as “miscarriage” indeed refers to a still birth, or if it can be translated as “premature birth”.

However, it was on two different Christian apologetic sites that this “debate” over the Hebrew word is discussed. It isn’t clear it’s referring to an intra-Christian debate, or a debate among Jewish scholars, but if the Jews have had a written and oral Torah for over 3,000 years (just as Catholics have Scripture and Sacred Tradition for 2000), and the oral tradition is supposed to be the guide for interpreting the written, then I would be interested to hear the interpretation of this verse from Jewish authorities.

 

[Ana_v]

All other options have been investigated and the doctors have concluded that if she does not terminate her pregnancy, both she and her unborn will surely die

I had a good chuckle over that one.

Well, we know for a fact that there are doctors who will sometimes advise abortion, or proceed with it (e.g. in cases of miscarriage management, or incomplete miscarriage, wherein it isn’t clear that fetal death has occured but the mother’s life is in peril and they want to be quick to act to empty the uterus and “remove the products of conception”).

@AlNg

Are you familiar with the principle of double effect that is invoked for cases where, due to circumstantial reasons, the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life?

 

[Kaninchen]

What’s interesting is that causing a miscarriage only carries an undefined monetary fine, whereas causing injury to the woman carries the penalty of lex talionis .

The thing is that “lex talionis” wasn’t as clear cut a concept as it sounded either (here’s the Jewish Encyclopedia - always a useful resource, if a little mind-numbing at times - on the subject of retaliation). It would seem to be a matter of scale of compensation - a sheep for a tooth, a flock for an eye, or whatever.

Mayhem was unlikely to resolve inter/intra-tribal problems, material recompense, on the other hand . . . (the ‘present’ Judges being an immediate arbitration panel)

 

[Lavenderson]

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.”

If Jews decide to abort an unborn child instead of letting God be the sole Author of life, it doesn’t matter what words of prayer are said afterwards. At their root, there is no faith.

 

[Ana_v]

If Jews decide to abort an unborn child instead of letting God be the sole Author of life, it doesn’t matter what words of prayer are said afterwards. At their root, there is no faith.

Either God being the author or life means that we may never kill other human beings, i.e. act as secondary causes in the taking of human life OR God being the author of life means we are permitted, under some circumstances, to kill other human beings.

Evidently, many theists believe the latter, when they defend the death penalty, war, and killing in self-defense.

What about abortion? Well, that just brings us right back to the OP, doesn’t it?

 

[Lavenderson]

God as the Author of life means only God brings souls into the world, as in creating (authoring) life. Just to clear that up.

The innocence of the unborn child is missing in your response. The death penalty is a justified response to intiated evil, as is killing in war and self-defense situations. These are responses to evil.

An unborn child never initiates evil by coming into existence, neither in fringe cases of rape or threat to the mother’s life. The unborn child is always innocent because it never violates anyone’s rigjts. Abortion is always willful murder of the completely innocent.

God always has good reasons to create life in a variety of situations, if man intervenes with murder, it’s evil. Enough said.

 

[Ana_v]

The death penalty is a justified response to intiated evil, as is killing in war and self-defense situations. These are responses to evil.

An unborn child never initiates evil by coming into existence, neither in fringe cases of rape or threat to the mother’s life. The unborn child is always innocent because it never violates anyone’s rigjts. Abortion is always willful murder of the completely innocent.

I agree with you that self-defense, the death penalty, and war (when just) are responses to evil initiated by another.

I also agree with you that an unborn human life in the womb hasn’t committed any moral evil.

However, this doesn’t resolve the Jewish-Catholic problem, as I understand it. If from the Jewish perspective, the human life in the womb is not a person in the same sense that the mother is, then an abortion would not be considered murder.

Think about it- even from a Christian point of a view, in order for an act of killing to be murder, the one being killed must be a human person.

We cannot murder a tree. Though a tree is perfectly alive. Nor can we murder an elephant, even if is on the list of endangered species. Nor can we murder an angel, because an angel is pure spirit.

What makes a human being, a person?

Aristotle distinguished between:

• First potentiality (e.g. a man who is illiterate, but can learn to read)
• Second potentiality/ first actuality (e.g. a man who knows how to read, but is sleeping)
• Second actuality (e.g. a man who is actively reading)

You’ll see why this is relevant.

Aristotle’s defintion of soul:

The soul is the first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially.

Aristotle distinguished between three different powers of the soul:

• The vegetative power: this is the power that plant life possesses, and all life in general; thus all plants, and all life forms are said to possess a “vegetative soul”, which simply refers to the actuality that gives the organism the powers of growth, development, movement, nourishment, and reproduction. What distinguishes a live frog from a dead frog, even if the organic matter in both are identical? One has a vegetative soul, and the other doesn’t. One is actualized, and the other isn’t.
• The sensitive power: this is the power that animal life forms possess; thus animal life is said to possess a “sensitive soul”, which simply refers to the actuality that gives the organism the powers of locomotion and sense perception.
• The rational power: this the power that human life forms possess; thus human life is said to possess a “rational soul”, which simply refers to the actuality that gives the organism the powers to think and reason.

For Aristotle, these degrees of soul are hierarchical, and the higher soul subsumes the lower soul(s). Plants have a vegetative soul; animals have a vegetative and sensitive soul; humans have a vegetative, sensitive, and rational soul.

Remember, “souls” are not separate entities for Aristotle. The soul is simply the actualizing form of a body.

 

[Ana_v]

So, what makes a human person, a person? Tomorrow I’ll write more, but for now I wanted to leave you with the above as food for thought.

 

[Lavenderson]

What makes a human being, a person ?

A soul, created solely by God at conception.

The Jewish perspective suggesting abortion is justified because an unborn child is less of a person than the mother due to the less developed (or less “actualized”) state of their soul since it disqualifies them from full person-hood, would be akin to suggesting that infanticide is justified since an infant is less human than the parents due to the less actualized state of the infant’s body since it disqualifies them from full adult-hood. It’s non-sense and morally twisted.

You seem much more well-read than me. Does the Jewish perspective really use Aristotle’s degrees/hierarchy of souls concept as an argument for abortion? If so, I would be rolling in my grave if I were Aristotle.

 

[Kaninchen]

Does the Jewish perspective really use Aristotle’s degrees/hierarchy of souls concept as an argument for abortion? If so, I would be rolling in my grave if I were Aristotle.

No, it’s based on the Torah, Exodus 21.

 

[Lavenderson]

Exodus 21 is used in Judaism to justify abortion? I thought Exodus 21 demands a fine from the assailant for causing a premature birth, and death for causing miscarriage.

 

[Kaninchen]

Exodus 21 is used in Judaism to justify abortion?

I wouldn’t accept that terminology.

I’m not going to get into an argument with you on this, it is what it is, Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus, Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus. They’re two different religions with different worldviews and foci.