Abortion: Jewish vs Catholic

[Sy_Noe]

My understanding from a Jewish poster who posts on CAF along with what I read in the linked article, is that at least Orthodox Judaism, in circumstances where allowing a pregnancy to continue would kill the mother, requires that the fetus be aborted, since the mother’s life is more important than that of the fetus.

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/abortion_1.shtml

That said, why then did the Catholic Church change this? Or is Jewish abortion law looked at in the same light or vein as shellfish and as ceremonial law, rather than moral law?

 

[1ke]

why then did the Catholic Church change this?

This is an assumption.

Jesus, during his ministry on earth, and the Church through her continued ministry after Jesus’s death, corrected and continue to correct many erroneous teachings.

The teaching you cite is from the Mishnah, a 2nd century CE document synthesizing rabbinic thought. It is not divinely inspired, nor are rabbis infallible, nor do all rabbis agree nor all branches of Judaism follow this. Nor does this necessarily represent the view of rabbis at the time of Christ because abortion as we know it today did not exist-- they did not have the knowledge of anatomy/physiology that we do now nor the means to surgically abort a child. These sorts of things are more contemporary thought than ancient thought.

Or is Jewish abortion law looked at in the same light or vein as shellfish and as ceremonial law, rather than moral law?

Any teaching contrary to the fifth commandment is in error.

 

[MaryT777]

Thanks for the link to the Jewish view. It was very interesting and seems as in many situations there are various views that differ.

I’m interested in any (name removed by moderator)ut posters have as well,

Mary.

 

[Todd977]

Catholic opposition to abortion can be found in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, such as the Didache (chapter 2): “… you shall not murder a child by abortion …” and the Epistle to Barnabas (chapter 19): “… You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion …”

 

[jcrichton]

My understanding from a Jewish poster who posts on CAF along with what I read in the linked article, is that at least Orthodox Judaism, in circumstances where allowing a pregnancy to continue would kill the mother, requires that the fetus be aborted, since the mother’s life is more important than that of the fetus.

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/abortion_1.shtml

That said, why then did the Catholic Church change this? Or is Jewish abortion law looked at in the same light or vein as shellfish and as ceremonial law, rather than moral law?

Hi!

…so who determined that the life of the mother is more important than that of the child she is carrying?

…oh, is it the term “fetus?”

…so how are they with the term “post birth abortion?”

…and what about “abortion,” er I meant “women’s health?”

…do you truly think that God is swayed by human terms?

…as I understand it, in the Jewish culture a person is not a full Jew unless he/she is born of a Jewish woman… so clearly there is a precedence and a hierarchy on the value of a human life from that very cultural stand point: a woman provides more Jewish people than a fetus might or might not… but is that God’s standard of human life?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is an assumption.

Jesus, during his ministry on earth, and the Church through her continued ministry after Jesus’s death, corrected and continue to correct many erroneous teachings.

The teaching you cite is from the Mishnah, a 2nd century CE document synthesizing rabbinic thought. It is not divinely inspired, nor are rabbis infallible, nor do all rabbis agree nor all branches of Judaism follow this. Nor does this necessarily represent the view of rabbis at the time of Christ because abortion as we know it today did not exist-- they did not have the knowledge of anatomy/physiology that we do now nor the means to surgically abort a child. These sorts of things are more contemporary thought than ancient thought.

Any teaching contrary to the fifth commandment is in error.

Hi!

…I would not go as far as not having the knowledge to procure abortions since prior to Rx there existed herbal medicine and homeopathic treatment–way back when people would even use substances such as arsenic for various “health/beauty” treatments.

…what they lacked was the present day technology and knowledge of the symptoms and deceases that have been discovered and studied–granted, not having present day tech and knowledge did keep certain practices (as abortion) to minimum since the treatment would often be just as bad as the ailment (abortions that were able to be performed would most likely kill/harm the mother as well as the child being aborted).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[1ke]

…I would not go as far as not having the knowledge to procure abortions

I did not say that.

My comment was regarding surgical abortion, vis-a-vis “mother’s life in danger”.

 

[jcrichton]

I did not say that.

My comment was regarding surgical abortion, vis-a-vis “mother’s life in danger”.

Hi!

…I understand; I wanted to include factors that would demonstrate that people did engage in the practice of abortion… even when technology and knowledge of decease and treatment were lacking.

Please accept my apologies if you feel I misrepresented your statements.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[joeybaggz]

My understanding from a Jewish poster who posts on CAF along with what I read in the linked article, is that at least Orthodox Judaism, in circumstances where allowing a pregnancy to continue would kill the mother, requires that the fetus be aborted, since the mother’s life is more important than that of the fetus.

That said, why then did the Catholic Church change this? Or is Jewish abortion law looked at in the same light or vein as shellfish and as ceremonial law, rather than moral law?

The CC, to my knowledge, condemns all deliberate abortions. However, the church holds that an abortion that occurs as the unintended consequence of a medical procedure necessary to save the life of the mother holds no moral culpability. (is not sinful) This would be,for example, the case where a pregnant woman at say three or four months, finds that she has a from of cancer that is highly treatable with radiation and chemotherapy. However it is a danger to the life of the fetus. It is my understanding that the woman may seek the treatment even if it terminates the pregnancy.

Now your question is interesting if the baby itself is the pathology that endangers the life of the mother. Any bioethicists and/or canon lawyers out there??

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hi!

…so who determined that the life of the mother is more important than that of the child she is carrying?

Angel

Hi

How do you see Ex 21:22-25, where if the pregnant woman was injured during a fight between men, the penalty is greater for the men than if they had caused her to miscarriage?

 

[Todd977]

Hi

How do you see Ex 21:22-25, where if the pregnant woman was injured during a fight between men, the penalty is greater for the men than if they had caused her to miscarriage?

In the ancient Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22-25 the penalty refers to the death or injury caused to the babe who is miscarried:

22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. 23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (source)

 

[Todd977]

This also seems to be the understanding of the passage by the Jewish philosopher Philo, about the time of Christ:

(108) But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct Shape1290 in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; (109) for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world. (Philo, Special Laws 3:XIX:108-109)

 

[jcrichton]

Hi

How do you see Ex 21:22-25, where if the pregnant woman was injured during a fight between men, the penalty is greater for the men than if they had caused her to miscarriage?

Hi!

…yeah, this is one of those passages that do present a conundrum… would the husband and the arbiters conclude that there’s no real damage suffered or would the husband insist that the assault did deprive him of his offspring (male/female) and that he must take blood-revenge (life for life) or would he and the arbiters conclude that that could only apply if the child was male or that the penalty should be “x” amount of grain/cattle/land/currency?

…this would go to cultural understanding and practices; yet, as stated in the previous posts: the practice varies according to rabbinic interpretation (perhaps also depending upon other factors as region, greed, famine, number of children the couple already has, etc.) and the Church does allow for unintended medical consequences of life-death treatment of a pregnant woman.

As to my estimation, there is no clear demonstration that God has defined that a pregnancy can be terminated because there’s no real value to the gestating child or that the gestating child is of less value than the mother who is carrying him/her.

Consider the examples in light of St. Luke 1:39-45–at which moment did St. John become the precursor of the Lord? …at which moment did Jesus become the Lord?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[The_Serpent]

Josephus states the Jewish view in the work commonly called “Flavius Josephus Against Apion.” In Book II, Chapter 25, section 202; he states women who cause abortion of what is begotten, are murders.

 

[BornInMarch]

This is an assumption.

Jesus, during his ministry on earth, and the Church through her continued ministry after Jesus’s death, corrected and continue to correct many erroneous teachings.

The teaching you cite is from the Mishnah, a 2nd century CE document synthesizing rabbinic thought. It is not divinely inspired, nor are rabbis infallible, nor do all rabbis agree nor all branches of Judaism follow this. Nor does this necessarily represent the view of rabbis at the time of Christ because abortion as we know it today did not exist-- they did not have the knowledge of anatomy/physiology that we do now nor the means to surgically abort a child. These sorts of things are more contemporary thought than ancient thought.

Actually, Abortion DID exist during the Ancient and Classical Eras. It was such a problem that the original Hippocratic Oath explicitly forbid physicians from preforming or aiding abortions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Original_oath
Original Hippocratic Oath:

I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art.

And shortly after Jesus’s Time, early Church Fathers such as Saint Basil condemned Abortion and used many of the same arguments that the Pro-life movement uses today.

catholicism.org/fathers-abortion.html

 

[BornInMarch]

This is an assumption.

Jesus, during his ministry on earth, and the Church through her continued ministry after Jesus’s death, corrected and continue to correct many erroneous teachings.

The teaching you cite is from the Mishnah, a 2nd century CE document synthesizing rabbinic thought. It is not divinely inspired, nor are rabbis infallible, nor do all rabbis agree nor all branches of Judaism follow this. Nor does this necessarily represent the view of rabbis at the time of Christ because abortion as we know it today did not exist-- they did not have the knowledge of anatomy/physiology that we do now nor the means to surgically abort a child. These sorts of things are more contemporary thought than ancient thought.

Yes it did. While surgical abortions were far less common, chemical abortions and abortifacient “medicines” were actually quite common in those times. Hippocrates actually included a prohibition against abortions in his original oath, and many Church Fathers from the first and second century condemned abortion explicitly.

catholicism.org/fathers-abortion.html