Judaism: emphisizes the importance of life

[Valke2]

Exactly…jews do not view all life as sacred, born or unborn or worth a life. That is why it is ok for a jew to murder an unborn child!

That didn’t take you long. Go put that on a bumper sticker. We’re done.

 

[Karin]

That didn’t take you long. Go put that on a bumper sticker. We’re done.

Well that did not take you long either I already have a bumper sticker that reads “abortion is murder”…your point?

Also if as you state Judiasm emphasis life than they would not allow abortion, or classify an unborn child as anything other than a human-being and afford the same rights and protections as a child /adult that was born, once again just my opinion!

 

[Karin]

Well, in Judaism, if the mother’s life is in danger, she takes precedence.

Interesting…what about saving both of them?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Karin:

Valke2:

Well, in Judaism, if the mother’s life is in danger, she takes precedence.

Interesting…what about saving both of them?

Obviously saving both mother and fetus is the preferable & optimal solution. But, unfortunately, that is not always possible.

We’ve discussed this before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=779961&highlight=abortion#post779961 (posts 7 through 25). Can’t we agree to disagree without one of us labelling the other a murderer? We have a principled disagreement here. Can’t we let it rest & remain friends (or at least on civil terms)?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Karin]

Hi all!

Obviously saving both mother and fetus is the preferable & optimal solution. But, unfortunately, that is not always possible.

We’ve discussed this before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=779961&highlight=abortion#post779961 (posts 7 through 25). Can’t we agree to disagree without one of us labelling the other a murderer? We have a principled disagreement here. Can’t we let it rest & remain friends (or at least on civil terms)?

Be well!

ssv

Sure we can disagree and agree to disagree…as to calling someone a murderer…someone that preforms abortions or gets them is committing murder in my book (and in many other Catholics books)…that I am sorry to say I will not budge on!

 

[Contarini]

You are wrong, IMHO.
A mothers life is no more important than an unborn childs life.
How do you see Judiasm** emphasising life** as important if abortion is allowed and even recommened in some cases?

But the Jewish belief is that the fetus is not a living human being until birth (I know there’s a specific definition of how much of the baby has to have emerged, but I’ve forgotten the details). That being the case, the Jewish tradition does emphasize life, because it severely restricts abortion even though it doesn’t consider the fetus to be fully a living human being.

I think the Jewish tradition is wrong on this and the Christian tradition is right. (Actually one could put this in the list of “oral traditions” we were discussing on another thread, since it appears as early as the Didache but is not found explicitly in the Bible.) But given the premise, the Jewish tradition certainly does emphasize life.

Edwin

 

[Valke2]

But the Jewish belief is that the fetus is not a living human being until birth (I know there’s a specific definition of how much of the baby has to have emerged, but I’ve forgotten the details). That being the case, the Jewish tradition does emphasize life, because it severely restricts abortion even though it doesn’t consider the fetus to be fully a living human being.

I think the Jewish tradition is wrong on this and the Christian tradition is right. (Actually one could put this in the list of “oral traditions” we were discussing on another thread, since it appears as early as the Didache but is not found explicitly in the Bible.) But given the premise, the Jewish tradition certainly does emphasize life.

Edwin

That’s a respectable position.

 

[Karin]

But the Jewish belief is that the fetus is not a living human being until birth (I know there’s a specific definition of how much of the baby has to have emerged, but I’ve forgotten the details). That being the case, the Jewish tradition does emphasize life, because it severely restricts abortion even though it doesn’t consider the fetus to be fully a living human being.

I think the Jewish tradition is wrong on this and the Christian tradition is right. (Actually one could put this in the list of “oral traditions” we were discussing on another thread, since it appears as early as the Didache but is not found explicitly in the Bible.) But given the premise, the Jewish tradition certainly does emphasize life.

Edwin

The babies head has to emerge from the womb for it to be considered a human-being…from the jewish prespective.

 

[Valke2]

The babies head has to emerge from the womb for it to be considered a human-being…from the jewish prespective.

No. That is the point when it is vested with all the rights of a person. It is still considered life before hand. But its rights, under certain conditions, are secondary to the rights of the mother.

 

[Karin]

Just some points…

** that the concept of “life” was regarded as the highest good, while “death” was seen as the worst evil. Hence the challenge found in Deuteronomy 30:19–“Today I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose *Life, *sothat you and your children may live.”

**that man was not a chance or a mere assemblage of cells, but that he was created in the image of God. Hence, the shedding of innocent blood was strictly forbidden (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 23:7, Prov. 6:16-17)

**that children were *never *seen as “unwanted” or as a nuisance, but as a gift from God – the highest possible blessing (Psalm 127:3-5, 113:9, Gen. 17:6, 33:5, etc.)

 

[Valke2]

Just some points…

** that the concept of “life” was regarded as the highest good, while “death” was seen as the worst evil. Hence the challenge found in Deuteronomy 30:19–“Today I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose *Life, *sothat you and your children may live.”\Quote]

When a Jew chooses Torah, he or she is choosing life. When they reject Torah, the are choosing death. This is how Judaism interperts that verse.

 

[Karin]

No. That is the point when it is vested with all the rights of a person. It is still considered life before hand. But its rights, under certain conditions, are secondary to the rights of the mother.

Ah yes, " *but it does not have as much value as a life in existence"…*I forgot that part.

 

[Karin]

When a Jew chooses Torah, he or she is choosing life. When they reject Torah, the are choosing death. This is how Judaism interperts that verse.

Thank you Valke2…I think that you and I will never agree on this, an unborn child is a human even thugh perhaps not born yet, and is still afforded the same rights as someone that is not in the womb.

 

[Valke2]

Thank you Valke2…I think that you and I will never agree on this, an unborn child is a human even thugh perhaps not born yet, and is still afforded the same rights as someone that is not in the womb.

We won’t agree on it, that’s true. ANd legally, that isn’t true in the USA. I don’t know about the rest of the world.

 

[Karin]

We won’t agree on it, that’s true. ANd legally, that isn’t true in the USA. I don’t know about the rest of the world.

Yes abortion is legal in the US…does not make it correct or moral though…not all of mans laws are just and moral…that is why I follow God’s law

Abortion Involves the Shedding of Innocent Blood
Abortion Is A Violation of the Golden Rule
Abortion Destroys A Work of God
Abortion Often Brings Shame, Heartache, and Deep Regret
Abortion De-values Human Life
Abortion Disannuls A Plan of God
If God allows a child to be conceived, then God obviously has a plan for that child Mary’s parents didn’t know that she’d give birth to the Savior of the world, but she did. God has a plan for unborn children (Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:13-17; Gen. 4:25; Jud. 13:3-5), so to abort an unborn child is to stop a plan of God.

 

[inJESUS]

What if the doctors knew for sure the baby is dangerous to the mother’s health ? there are situations where it is either mother or baby, and i choose mother.

 

[Valke2]

What if the doctors knew for sure the baby is dangerous to the mother’s health ? there are situations where it is either mother or baby, and i choose mother.

That is essentailly what the Talmud says.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

LOL!!!
A reward because his point of view differed from yours???

To be fair, I think Valke2 had a good right to be angry in that thread.

But I disgress.

Valke2, I think what Karin is saying (and I agree with Karin on this too), is that when faced with a choice between life for either the mother or the child in the womb, modern Judaism apparently favors the life of the mother over the the child in her womb-- favors her life to the point that it is considered valid to violently terminate the life of the child.

Catholicism doesn’t actually do this. Catholicism, despite the opinons of lasped Catholics like Kerry and Kennedy, actually says that deliberately terminating the life of the child de-emphasizes the importance of all life because it places the value of some lives over the value of other lives.

In other words, Judaism appears to delibertely allow the termination of life-- a life that is, on a genetic/dna level, wholly and uniquely human from the point of conception, and wholly innocent of any harm he/she may be involuntarilly inflicting on their mother.

Let’s put this another way.

Rachel herself died during complications delivering her second son.

Then they moved on from Bethel.

While they were still some distance from Ephrath, Rachel began to give birth and had great difficulty. And as she was having great difficulty in childbirth, the midwife said to her, “Don’t be afraid, for you have another son.”

As she breathed her last—for she was dying—she named her son Ben-Oni.

But his father named him Benjamin.

So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem). Over her tomb Jacob set up a pillar, and to this day that pillar marks Rachel’s tomb.

Today Rachel’s Tomb, located between Bethlehem and the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, is visited by tens of thousands of visitors each year.

Interestingly, in Jeremiah 31:15 the prophet speaks of ‘Rachel weeping for her children’.

This is apparently interpreted in Judaism as Rachel crying for an end to her descendants’ sufferings and exiles following the destruction of the First Temple in ancient Jerusalem.

According to a Midrash, Rachel spoke before God:

“I brought my rival (Leah) into my house; can’t You forgive Your children, who brought a mere idol of wood and stone into Your house (the Temple in Jerusalem)?”

God apparently accepted her plea and promised that, eventually, the exile would end and the Jews would return to their land.

But is it possible that ‘Rachel weeping for her children’ may have had a double meaning?

Rachel is actually one of the strongest cases within Judaism that the mother’s life was not considered important enough to terminate the life of the child within her. In fact, she died specifically due to the complications involved in delivering her second son.

And, to be fair, I’m not aware of any God-fearing Jewish women within the Hebrew Scriptures who actually made a choice to terminate the life of the child within them in favor of their own life.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there appears to be a strong disconnect between what the ancient Hebrew Scriptures actually portray and what the modern Rabbinical teachings actually claim.

Ancient Judaism, as Rachel herself demonstrates, apparently did not explicitly value the life of the mother over that of the child within her womb. At least, if it’s being claimed that ancient Judiasm did value the life of the mother over that of the child within her womb, it’s not explicitly stated as such.

More to the point, there’s more than a few examples within ancient Juduaism which seem to display the opposite of what Rabbinical Judaism claims about the value of the child within the womb.

In fact, I’m not aware of any examples (either in theory or in practice) where the Hebrew Scriptures endorse the latter position of Rabbinical Judaism.

Not once.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2, I think what Karin is saying (and I agree with Karin on this too), is that when faced with a choice between life for either the mother or the child in the womb, modern Judaism apparently favors the life of the mother over the the child in her womb-- favors her life to the point that it is considered valid to violently terminate the life of the child.

Absolutely. I’ve said the same thing several times.

Catholicism doesn’t actually do this. Catholicism, despite the opinons of lasped Catholics like Kerry and Kennedy, actually says that deliberately terminating the life of the child de-emphasizes the importance of all life because it places the value of some lives over the value of other lives.

I understand. However, one can’t look at Judaism’s view and say that because of it the Torah does not embrace life.

Let’s put this another way.

Rachel herself died during complications delivering her second son.

Yes. But that doesn’t advance either postion either way. Except it does, I suppose, support my statement in another thread, that because childbirth was such a health risk to the women, the commandment to be fruitful and multiply applies only to men in Judaism.

According to a Midrash, Rachel spoke before God:

Rachel is actually one of the strongest cases within Judaism that the mother’s life was not considered important enough to terminate the life of the child within her. In fact, she died specifically due to the complications involved in delivering her second son.

Absolutely not. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

I guess what I’m getting at is that there appears to be a strong disconnect between what the ancient Hebrew Scriptures actually portray and what the modern Rabbinical teachings actually claim.

No. I don’t see that at all. In another thread on homosexuality, somone posted that just because the Bible is silent about something, it does not mean that it condones it. Conversely, just because the Torah does not have a women terminating her pregnancy, it does not mean that it was prohibited.

Ancient Judaism, as Rachel herself demonstrates, apparently did not explicitly value the life of the mother over that of the child within her womb. At least, if it’s being claimed that ancient Judiasm did value the life of the mother over that of the child within her womb, it’s not explicitly stated as such.

Again, this is a false conclusion. And it is explictly stated – or at least more so than your position. First, you are failing to give equal weight to the Talmud, which is ok from a gentile’s perspective. BUt the oral Torah carries as much weight as the written one. THe Mishna, the part of the Talmud which we believe was given “contemporaneously” with the Torah, is not a rabbinic ruling, but the word of God. It states that if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Clearly this implies that if it would not be possible abortion is permissible. (Oholos 7:6). Talmud clearly set’s forth the parameters, which I’ll discuss in detail in another post. But I understand that this would fall under the heading of “rabbinic rulings” for you.

Then there is Exodus 21:22: And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries 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].

If the woman died, the assailant would be killed but if the fetus died, only fined. the life of the fetus does not take precedence over the life of the woman.

Again, under almost any other circumstance, abortion is prohibited in judaism. i.e. birth defects. There is a recent ruling in orthodoxy which even prohibits amniosetises (sp?) if it is being done for the purpose of determineing whether to terminate a pregnancy because of birth defects.

 

[Valke2]

keep in mind that there is no evidence that there was any chance to save Rachel by killing the fetus. Moreover, that a birth is difficult wouild not justify an abortion. There would have to be a determination that there was a direct and imminent threat that the woman would die.

That Rachel lived, at least long enough to name her son, tends to negate this. I am not an expert in biblical midwivery and do not know what standards were used to make such a determination during Jacob’s time.