Judaism: emphisizes the importance of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi all!

Good morning from the Holy Land!

Hmm…
40.png
Karin:
The babies head has to emerge from the womb for it to be considered a human-being…from the jewish prespective.
Click to expand...
To update this, nowadays I don’t think that any orthodox rabbi worth his NaCl would sanction an abortion if the fetus were viable and could be delivered by c-section provided that the operation would not endanger the mother’s life. Our sources speak about the head emerging because up until quite recently, given the state of medical knowledge, it wasn’t known that fetuses were viable before birth and (successful) abdominal surgery (in which the patient/mother wasn’t killed due to sepsis, among other things) was unknown.

Mr. Ex Nihilo, your views about Rachel (DW & I prayed at her tomb rachelstomb.org/main.html once when we were plowing through fertility treatment) & Benjamin but have no basis in Jewish tradition and are no precedent vis-a-vis our view that it is permissible to abort a fetus in order to save the mother’s life.
And they journeyed from Beit El; and there was still some way to come to Ephrat; and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the mid-wife said unto her: ‘Fear not; for this also is a son for you.’ And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing–for she died–that she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
Click to expand...
Rachel had already gone into labor, i.e. she had already begun to give birth, when she had “hard labor”. Once the birth process is underway, it is absolutely forbidden to abort the fetus in order to save the mother. At that point, her life no longer has precedence over his. It is permitted, required even, in our view to abort, say, an ectopic or tubal or ovarian pregnancy (or even a uterine one depending on the conditions) if the fact of the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and there is no way to save both the fetus & the mother. In such a case, the fetus is considered a rodef, i.e. that is seeking the mother’s life. However, once the birth process has begun (or, to speak in more modern terms, see above, the fetus is viable & can be removed by c-section without endangering the mother), it no longer has this status. In such a case, in Rachel’s case, it is not the fetus who is seeking the mother’s life but God Himself and, of course, what He gives, He can take. In Genesis 35:16-18, Jacob & the mid-wife were exactly obeying Jewish law & are a great example that there is no divergence between “Ancient Judaism” and us today. Mr. Ex Nihilo, nice try. Take a (kosher, of course! :rolleyes: ) chocolate chip cookie!

I always think it a hoot when folks who are not of our faith take it upon themselves to tell us what our faith “really” means or “really” taught. I would never dream of presuming to lecture any of my Roman Catholic friends on what their faith means. That is up to them, solely. 🙂

Question: What does Roman Catholic doctrine say regarding ectopic, tubal or ovarian pregnancies?

Be well!

ssv 👋

quote=
 
**Mr. Ex Nihilo [/quote] ] [I]Valke2 said:
Absolutely. I’ve said the same thing several times.
.
Click to expand...
How sad:( …that one life is more important than another and that you are allowed to rip it limb from limb and violently KILL it…a tragic shame and to think that this defensless human being that has been violently killed could of been the next Simon Wiesenthal or Golda Meir but you will never know because their lives where ended before they even had a chance!
 
stillsmallvoice said:
I always think it a hoot when folks who are not of our faith take it upon themselves to tell us what our faith “really” means or “really” taught. I would never dream of presuming to lecture any of my Roman Catholic friends on what their faith means. That is up to them, solely. 🙂
Click to expand...
Dont mean to tell you what your faith teaches or means…just attempting to point out that killing of innocent lives via aboriton is wrong and evil…that no one life in more important than any other life!
Question: What does Roman Catholic doctrine say regarding ectopic, tubal or ovarian pregnancies?
Click to expand...
Here are some articles that you might find helpful
Ectopic for Discussion: A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies

Ectopic Pregnancy
 
40.png
Karin:
How sad:( …that one life is more important than another and that you are allowed to rip it limb from limb and violently KILL it…a tragic shame and to think that this defensless human being that has been violently killed could of been the next Simon Wiesenthal or Golda Meir but you will never know because their lives where ended before they even had a chance!

oy. Perhaps the mother could be the next Golda Meir or Simon Wiesenthal.
 
From the article you linked: As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.

That seems to be a far cry from your black and white determination that getting rid of a fetus is always murder.
 
Valke2 said:
So basically the Church has not taken a stand? How can that be? That must drive you crazy.
Click to expand...
Actaully the Church has:D …I guess you did not read the articles I linked to…let me help you out…😉

***The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. **Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles: *
  • · In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2] *
  • · Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]*
    On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.
    This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.
    Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.
    *Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process. *
    This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).
    cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
 
Valke2 said:
From the article you linked: As is the case with all difficult moral decisions, the couple must become informed, actively seek divine guidance, and follow their well-formed conscience.

That seems to be a far cry from your black and white determination that getting rid of a fetus is always murder.
Click to expand...
Nope…getting rid of a fetus via a direct abortion is murder 😃 no black and white issues here
May I suggest that you read the WHOLE article cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
 
Karin said:
Actaully the Church has:D …I guess you did not read the articles I linked to…let me help you out…😉

***The moral teachings of the Church call for medical treatment that respects the lives of both. ***Most recently, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated these principles:
  • · In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2] *
  • · Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]*
    On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.
    This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.
    Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.
    *Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process. *
    This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).
    cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Click to expand...
All that is basically saying, in a lot more words than what the Talmud says, that the mother’s life can be saved even if the consequence is the destruction of the fetus. Making the distinction of “direct abortion” only changes the method, not the result.
 
Valke2 said:
All that is basically saying, in a lot more words than what the Talmud says, that the mother’s life can be saved even if the consequence is the destruction of the fetus. Making the distinction of “direct abortion” only changes the method, not the result.
Click to expand...
the method is everything dear Valke2.
Abortion is a sin in our books…seeking a direct abortion as Jewish woman do is not acceptable to us or allowed:)
 
Karin said:
the method is everything dear Valke2.
Abortion is a sin in our books…seeking a direct abortion as Jewish woman do is not acceptable to us or allowed:)
Click to expand...
lol. I’m sure many more christians than jews seek abortions. But I think we’ve exhausted our positions on this topic. I know I have.
 
Valke2 said:
lol. I’m sure many more christians than jews seek abortions. But I think we’ve exhausted our positions on this topic. I know I have.
Click to expand...
Well unless you can provide stats on this assumption (more catholics than jews get abortions) than may I suggest you refrain from making unsubstainiated (sp?) claims like this!
Once again valke2…you where done with this thread awhile ago:thumbsup: …we will have to agree to disagree that abortion is murder;)
 
There were about 186,000 abortions performed in England in 2003. The entire Jewish population there is 350,000. Assumng for the sake of argument that 186,000 of those Jews were adult women (which is of course not correct. the number would be much lower). In order for one to assume that more Jews than Christians had abortions in England, you would have to assume that almost every jewish woman had one.

Additionally, there were 9,100 peformed in England on women who came from Ireland. Probably not a lot of jews in that group.
religionhumanrights.com/Ethics/Health/abortions.uk.au28.4.htm

According the the followling link in 1985 (I think) the percentages of abortion by religion were as follows (the first number is the percentage of abortions by religion, the second number is the percentage of all women by religion):

Protestant 40%/57.9%
Catholic 31.5%/32.1% Jewish: 1.4%/2.5%
No Religion 22.2%/5.5%

holysmoke.org/fem/fem0113.htm
 
A different, and perhaps more veriviable source:

the Alan Guttmacher Institute reported in 2001-JUL that 37.4% of all abortions are performed on Protestant women; 18% of all abortions are done on born-again Protestants. “Born-again” believers constitute about 30% of the American adult population, and are thus under-represented among those women having abortions.

The abortion index by religion during 1994-1995 was found to be: Protestants: 0.69
Followers of a non-Judeo-Christian religion: 0.78
Catholics: 1.01%
Jews: 1.08
Persons who do not follow an organized religion: 4.02

An index value of 1.0 represents the national average. e.g. Catholics were 1% more likely to obtain an abortion than average. Data was prepared by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Storrs, CT, in 1995 from five Gallup polls.
 
I’m not sure how the statement “more Christians than Jews get abortions” is meaningless. As you pointed out, more Christians than Jews do just about everything, because there are a lot more of us!

But your own figures (the second set anyway) indicate that Jews are second only to non-religious people in the *percentage *of abortions.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
I’m not sure how the statement “more Christians than Jews get abortions” is meaningless. As you pointed out, more Christians than Jews do just about everything, because there are a lot more of us!

But your own figures (the second set anyway) indicate that Jews are second only to non-religious people in the *percentage *of abortions.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Yes. According to that site. However, Catholics are no slouches when it comes to abortions either.
 
Of course the numbers don’t tell us how many are lapsed Catholics or secular Jews.
 
Valke2 said:
Of course the numbers don’t tell us how many are lapsed Catholics or secular Jews.
Click to expand...
Very true. I suspect that the better numbers for Protestants (especially evangelicals) have to do with the fact that lapsed Protestants are more likely to stop identifying themselves as being religious at all. Catholicism and Judaism are both more cultural–especially Judaism. Probably the numbers reflect this more than anything else.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top