Judaism: emphisizes the importance of life

[Karin]

Ok. I don’t think it would have a significant part on the decision. **I don’t think that according to Judaism, it is less acceptable to save the mother’s life by the abortion method as opposed to removing the tube./**quote]
That is the difference…

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;1590323:

Ok. I don’t think it would have a significant part on the decision. I don’t think that according to Judaism, it is less acceptable to save the mother’s life by the abortion method as opposed to removing the tube./

quote]
That is the difference…

I understand that is the difference. But I don’t believe one position is more moral than the other.

 

[Karin]

Karin;1590332:

I understand that is the difference. But I don’t believe one position is more moral than the other.

Isnt one of the 10 commandments “thou shall not kill”?
What do you think your way (abortion) is doing? there is nothing morally good in abortion!

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;1590344:

Isnt one of the 10 commandments “thou shall not kill”?
What do you think your way (abortion) is doing? there is nothing morally good in abortion!

doing a different operation that is going to have the exact same result is just as much killing as the first one.
(and it is “thou shall not murder”).

Judaism has always recognized certain killings as not being in breach of that commandment. Self defense being one of them.

 

[Karin]

doing a different operation that is going to have the exact same result is just as much killing as the first one.

nope and I cant explain it again and again to you… perhaps somebody else can explain it better so you can understand…but I have a feeling that you will not understand no matter how many ways it is explained

valke2:

(and it is “thou shall not murder”).

yes I know it is “murder” not “kill” but I did not want you to think I was calling people that got abortions muderers again

valke2:

Judaism has always recognized certain killings as not being in breach of that commandment. Self defense being one of them.

Abortion **is not **self-defense it is murder/killing an innocent LIFE…plain and simple!!!
The issue we are having is that you (jews) do not view a baby in the womb as a human where we catholics do…

 

[Karin]

***When the Fallopian tube is in this condition, would it be licit to slit it open and remove the fetus? Obviously this action would be gravely evil, for it would constitute a direct, unjust attack on the life of an innocent fetus. It would, in short, be murder. In such a procedure the operating surgeon would set out to destroy the fetus as a means of curing the mother, and thus he would directly intend its death. ***
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1590325&postcount=95

 

[Valke2]

The second operation would also violate the commandment, if it were to be intepreted your way. It is an operation being done with the knowledge that it will definately “kill” the unborn child.

So again, I don’t see any real difference here. And it is thou shall not murder. Judaism recognizes that killing may be required under certain circumstances, such as self defense.

Let’s take a more controversial example. In this scenarior, a pregnant woman will absolutely die if forced to carry a fetus to full term. The only way to save her life is to abort the fetus. However, if you don’t abort the fetus, the baby has a chance to live, but the mother’s life is forfeit. Just for fun, let’s assume she is a single parent, widowed, with with two other children at home.

From what I understand, the mother would not be permitted to terminate the pregnancy under Catholism. The mother would die and the baby would have a chance to survive.

From what I understand about Judaism, the baby would be aborted and the mother would live. I understand you view this as murder. I don’t.

So again, we come full circle. I suppose you don’t view the Torah as embracing life. I view this another example that emphasizes the importance Torah places on life.

I’m pretty sure we’ve about played this topic out for all its worth. I’ll let you have the last word.

 

[Valke2]

I may have posted this twice. Sorry. THought it didn’t take the first time.

 

[Karin]

And it is thou shall not murder. Judaism recognizes that killing may be required under certain circumstances, such as self defense.

Yes i do know that (murder not kill) did not want you to think I was calling certain people murders for having abortions though …and abortion is not self defense it is murder.

Let’s take a more controversial example. In this scenarior, a pregnant woman will absolutely die if forced to carry a fetus to full term. The only way to save her life is to abort the fetus. However, if you don’t abort the fetus, the baby has a chance to live, but the mother’s life is forfeit. Just for fun, let’s assume she is a single parent, widowed, with with two other children at home.

have this woman carry the preganncy as long as she can and then deliver the baby. was that so hard? and who cares if she is single and already has kids…this has nothing to do with it…life is life!

From what I understand, the mother would not be permitted to terminate the pregnancy under Catholism. The mother would die and the baby would have a chance to survive.

not at all…see above

From what I understand about Judaism, the baby would be aborted and the mother would live. I understand you view this as murder. I don’t.

yes most catholics and christians would view this as murder and rightfully so.

So again, we come full circle. I suppose you don’t view the Torah as embracing life. I view this another example that emphasizes the importance Torah places on life.

nope

 

[inJESUS]

forgive me, but am confused here. Valke, you are saying that in case, and only in case the pregnancy will kill the mother that you do abortion right?

 

[Valke2]

forgive me, but am confused here. Valke, you are saying that in case, and only in case the pregnancy will kill the mother that you do abortion right?

Yes. Only if the mother’s life is in danger. Now what constitutes sufficent danger can be debateable. For example, in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy, it is possible to find that the metnal angusih to the mother would be so great as to pose an imminent threat to her life.

 

[inJESUS]

Yes. Only if the mother’s life is in danger. Now what constitutes sufficent danger can be debateable. For example, in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy, it is possible to find that the metnal angusih to the mother would be so great as to pose an imminent threat to her life.

oh so the problem is not abortion per se in case either the mother or the baby will die…rather it is the “sufficiant” reason that you both are arguing about…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is the same principle. Except in Judaism, we will not sit back and do nothing if we know it will result in the death of the mother.

No. Actually it’s not.

In the situation I’ve provided, the Catholic position, we have done nothing bad to the child. We’ve only allowed what was inevitably beyond our control to take place naturally. In fact, failure to act to save the mother could be considered evil in this sense.

In the situation you’ve provided, the Jewish position, we have done something bad to the child.

So we’re not even talking about the same situation at all.

In the situation you’re describing, we’re actually closer to the child than to the woman. And, in order to save the woman’s life, instead of saving the child’s life, we deliberately push the child against the woman in order to knock the woman out of the way of the car-- knowing full well that the child will be hit by the car in the process.

This second position is not merely a case of only allowing what was inevitably beyond our control to take place naturally. This second position is a matter of deliberately killing the child within the womb in order to save the mother’s life.

See the difference?

Valke2:

The whole point is that if a choice must be made, if only one can be saved, we save the mother.

No. That’s not the point.

The Catholic position is that we can allow what would normally come to pass to happen naturally as we save the mother’s life.

The Jewish position is that we can deliberately and unnaturally terminate the child’s life in the womb in order to save the mother’s life.

Valke2:

So let’s keep it simple. If only one choice can be made, who do you save?

But it isn’t that simple. And that’s exactly why I explained this to you in the hypothetical situation I noted above.

 

[inJESUS]

:whacky: :whacky:

 

[Valke2]

See the difference?

Yes. I see the difference. i just don’t see that it is a moral difference. I understand the Catholic position. You have explained it well. I just think it is a cop out to say such a position has the moral high ground.

 

[Valke2]

If the mother’s life can be saved and the baby’s can not, there’s little difference between Judaism and Cathoclism. I know you think that by engaging in an operation that will certainly kill the baby but which goal is not to kill the baby, is a difference. I don’t see it.

But I don’t know why you can’t answer the question as to what the Church teaches in a situation where only one of the two can be saved, medically.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo;1590471:

See the difference?

Valke2:

Yes. I see the difference. i just don’t see that it is a moral difference.

But I don’t think you actualy do see the difference.

In the case of these kinds of pregnancies, due to the conditions where the pregnancy occurs, the child was going to naturally perish regardless of whether we removed the organs hosting the child or not.

You need to understand that the child within the womb was going to perish naturally due to the complications involved with their conception regardless of what action we take.

So we’re not terminating the life of the child. We’re only allowing what was going to naturally happen regardless of what action we took-- and this is different, at least in this specific regard, from the Judaic view.

Valke2:

I understand the Catholic position. You have explained it well. I just think it is a cop out to say such a position has the moral high ground.

Do you know of any possible way to save the life of the child in these difficult pregnancies?

 

[kellie]

So giving the woman a drug to abort the foetus is morally wrong, but removing the tube whereby the foetus will die anyway, is morally right?

I am Catholic, and I am finding it hard to see the clear distinction here too Valke.

Either way, being wheeled into the operating room, the woman knows she is about to kill her foetus to save herself.

Hmmmm, I have never thought of ectopic pregnancies before regarding abortion.

It is interesting hey.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

If the mother’s life can be saved and the baby’s can not, there’s little difference between Judaism and Cathoclism.

One is a matter of intent to abort the child by either injecting it with saline solution, or ripping it apart within the womb, with the specific goal of killing the child.

One is a matter of intent to save the woman by removing the damaged organs in question and allowing the natural process take its course for the child, with the specific goal of saving the woman.

Valke2:

I know you think that by engaging in an operation that will certainly kill the baby but which goal is not to kill the baby, is a difference. I don’t see it.

Is there any possible way to save the child Valke2?

Think about what I’m asking you.

Valke2:

But I don’t know why you can’t answer the question as to what the Church teaches in a situation where only one of the two can be saved, medically.

I can’t answer it because you’re not giving me enough information to go on. The factors involved will certainly be much more complicated that the either/or proposition you’re advancing.

 

[Valke2]

One is a matter of intent to abort the child by either injecting it with saline solution, or ripping it apart within the womb, with the specific goal of killing the child.

One is a matter of intent to save the woman by removing the damaged organs in question and allowing the natural process take its course for the child, with the specific goal of saving the woman.

Is there any possible way to save the child Valke2?

Think about what I’m asking you.

I can’t answer it because you’re not giving me enough information to go on. The factors involved will certainly be much more complicated that the either/or proposition you’re advancing.

In the initial example there is no way to save the child. Which is why I don’t see any moral high ground on the decision to save the mother by removing the tube vs. saline solution.

I dont’ know what other factors you would need to consider for the second hypo. I’m talking about a situation where the only way to save the mother is to terminate the pregnancy, even though if the pregnancy is allowed to continued, the baby may survive, althouth the mother will certainly not. In such a situation, is it permissible to abort the fetus? I 'm guessing the answer is no. Would it be permissible to perform an operation to save the mother that would, with certainity result in the death of the baby, even though that would not be the “intent” of the operation?