Judaism: emphisizes the importance of life

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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.

Seems to be a factor to me.

stillsmallvoice:

Rachel had already gone into labor, i.e. she had already begun to give birth, when she had “hard labor”.

And???

My apologies stillsmallvoice, but there is very little difference between some large children at the age of 7-8 months in the womb when compared to the some small children who come out naturally at the age of 9 months.

Drawing this distinction between gestation and hard labour matters very little when compared to the final results of life or death due to their status within the womb.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

And I think this is a good thing.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not claming that Judaism is pro-death at all. On the whole I believe that Judaism more often than not emphasizes the importance of life over death. So I definitely admire many, many areas where Catholicism and Judaism agree.

It’s the finer points that I’m concerned with.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

But the child within the womb cannot be considered to have deliberately threatend the mother’s life. Their is no cognizance on the part of the child within the womb to actively injure their own mother. More to the point, this kind of thinking leads one to believe that aggressive child within the womb is more akin to a parasite worthy of destruction than a cherished gift from God.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

But how can a child within the womb, regardless of how far along the pregnancy they might be, be considered an aggressor if the child cannot actually intentionally choose to harm their mother?

That doesn’t make any sense to me.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

The child within the womb isn’t deliberately seeking the mother’s life period. The child has to have the ability to actively choose to launch an attack and deliberately seek to harm their mother before they could ever possibly be considered as guilty of death.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

According to Rabbinical Judiasm perhaps.

And yet you can’t really point toward any examples within the Hebrew Scriptures where any God fearing Jewish woman deliberately terminated the life of their own child within their womb in order to save their own lives.

I’m not a sola scriptura type. Far from it actually. In fact, I tend to interpret the Scripture’s factual events rather allegorically at times.

But in a moral situation like this, where an innocent life is going to be consciously and painfully ended for reasons/actions that they themselves cannot actually choose to do, I would hope that someone can point out something with more substance than the distinction between gestation and hard labor.

There is no distinction.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, nice try. Take a (kosher, of course! ) chocolate chip cookie!

Ok.

And, in the meantime, why don’t you take a long, hard look at this while you’re offering me your kosher chocolate chip cookie.

I’m not really sure what else I could say that this picture above doesn’t already say.

stillsmallvoice:

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.

Maybe so. But I’m not trying to tell you what your faith “really” means or “really” taught. I’m explaining to you what my faith teaches when it speaks of Rachel weeping.

A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and bitter weeping:
Rachel Weeping for Her Children
Refusing to be comforted for her children,
Because they are no more.

Jeremiah 31:15

stillsmallvoice:

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.

But this isn’t really a matter of any ecumenical sharing of each others thoughts. I do accept that Judaism, for the most part, has a deep respect for life. And I respect Judaism in that regard.

However, if someone is going to claim that Judaism emphasizes the importance of life, and yet they are also going to explain to me that performing an abortion to save the mother’s life is not actually terminating a life, then I’m going to question their claims further.

In fact, the reason why I’m going to question their claims further is specifically because I don’t agree with their claims. And if I think I can save the life of these little innocent ones by explaining my own faith to them, I’m going to do exactly this.

stillsmallvoice:

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

Do you really want to know?

stillsmallvoice:

Be well!

ssv

 

[Valke2]

Seems to be a factor to me.

According to Rabbinical Judiasm perhaps.

Again, you are taking what is set forth in the Mishna and labeling it “Rabbinical Judaism” as if that somehow makes it less. It doesn’t. For openers, the Mishna is not considered laws set forth by the Rabbis. It is the laws transmitted orally from God to Moses and From Moses to Aaron, from Aaron to Elders… (I may have the chain wrong, but you get the idea).

There are plenty of Rabbinic commentary on the Mishna where, if we were relying on them, your argument of “rabbinic judiasm” would make more sense. But it would still be wrong. Because Judaism IS rabbinic Judaism. And it has been for quite some time now.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

And, in the meantime, why don’t you take a long, hard look at this while you’re offering me your kosher chocolate chip cookie.

I’m not really sure what else I could say that this picture above doesn’t already say.

Um, quoth the great Homer Simpson :bowdown: , “Your point being?”

Those photos are nothing I haven’t seen before, more than once. So, what is your point? 'Cause unless you can prove to me that the dead & mutilated fetus in the picture was aborted from a Jewish woman who had secured the specific assent of a qualified orthodox rabbi to have the abortion, I’m at an utter loss as to what your point is.

We actually agree on quite a lot here. We both absolutely oppose abortion as an after-the-fact means of birth control. In fact, the only circumstances in which orthodox Judaism permits an abortion is to save the life of the mother, provided that the birth process has not begun and/or the fetus would not be viable if delivered by c-section or an induced vaginal birth, provided that such a c-section or induced vaginal birth would not endanger the mother’s life. This aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp is a very good article that sets forth the orthodox Jewish view in some detail.
Mr. Ex Nihilo:

stillsmallvoice:

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

Do you really want to know?

Yes.

Be well!

ssv

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Again, you are taking what is set forth in the Mishna and labeling it “Rabbinical Judaism” as if that somehow makes it less. It doesn’t. For openers, the Mishna is not considered laws set forth by the Rabbis. It is the laws transmitted orally from God to Moses and From Moses to Aaron, from Aaron to Elders… (I may have the chain wrong, but you get the idea).

There are plenty of Rabbinic commentary on the Mishna where, if we were relying on them, your argument of “rabbinic judiasm” would make more sense. But it would still be wrong. Because Judaism IS rabbinic Judaism. And it has been for quite some time now.

The point is that some things do change over time Valke2.

Even Judaism is not immune to this.

Consider the difference in Jewish worship since the Temple was destroyed by the Romans for example. Since the Pharisaic schools were the more disciplined and godly of the Jewish schools of thought they rightly gathered together the oral traditions of Jewish thought to focus more on prayer than sacrifice.

Bearing this in mind, there is a clear shift from Temple worship toward individual worship throughout Synagogue. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic school of thought was re-established as Rabbinic Judaism — which ultimately produced normative, traditional Judaism, the basis for almost all contemporary forms of Judaism as far as I can tell.

The relationship between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism (exemplified by the Talmud) is so close that many do not distinguish between the two. Nevertheless, the social standing and beliefs of the Pharisees did change over time, as political and social conditions in Judea changed.

And just as Temple worship shifted toward the Synagogue, the teaching regarding abortion in these specific circumstances seems to have likewise changed radically from the ancient thoughts regarding abortion toward the modern ones.

Pointing toward ancient examples within Judaism which vindicate the modern belief that they were engaging in current laws which did not allow for abortion does not prove that the ancient Israelites actually engaged in abortions under circumstance when the conditions were not met.

More to the point, there are no examples of abortions under any circumstances within ancient Judaism. There are, however, at least two examples of Jewish women dying in order to bear their children to life even at the expence of there own lives.

Another example can be found here…

His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was pregnant and near the time of delivery.

When she heard the news that the ark of God had been captured and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she went into labor and gave birth, but was overcome by her labor pains.

As she was dying, the women attending her said, “Don’t despair; you have given birth to a son.”

But she did not respond or pay any attention.

She named the boy Ichabod, saying, “The glory has departed from Israel”-because of the capture of the ark of God and the deaths of her father-in-law and her husband.

 

[Valke2]

The point is that some things do change over time Valke2.

Even Judaism is not immune to this.

Consider the difference in Jewish worship since the Temple was destroyed by the Romans for example. Since the Pharisaic schools were the more disciplined and godly of the Jewish schools of thought they rightly gathered together the oral traditions of Jewish thought to focus more on prayer than sacrifice.

It is a mistake to think prayer was not an integral part of Judaism before the destruction of the Temple. Many jews, especially those that lived to far from the Temple, used prayer instead of sacrifice.

Things change in Judasim, of course. But there is nothing in our history to suggest that the laws regarding the status of the fetus have changed to the extent of lessening that status over time. To the contrary, as stillsmall has pointed out, the situations were it is permissible have actually narrowed over time.

 

[Karin]

To the contrary, as stillsmall has pointed out, the situations were it is permissible have actually narrowed over time.

*A 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria: *

• *She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels $370]). *
• *She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free). *
• *She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband’s (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay. *
• She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free) SOURCE
  does not sound like it is any harder to get an aboriton in Israel . It actaully looks like Jewish Law has made it easier to get an abortion not make it less restrictive

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It is a mistake to think prayer was not an integral part of Judaism before the destruction of the Temple. Many jews, especially those that lived to far from the Temple, used prayer instead of sacrifice.

But I didn’t say prayer was not an integral part of Judaism before the destruction of the Temple.

I said…

Since the Pharisaic schools were the more* disciplined and godly of the Jewish schools of thought they rightly gathered together the oral traditions of Jewish thought to focus more* on prayer than sacrifice.

*Note that more has now been bolded twice for more emphasis.

Valke2:

Things change in Judasim, of course. But there is nothing in our history to suggest that the laws regarding the status of the fetus have changed to the extent of lessening that status over time.

There’s also nothing within Judaism’s ancient history which explicitly states that they engaged in abortions under these difficult circumstances either.

Valke2:

To the contrary, as stillsmall has pointed out, the situations were it is permissible have actually narrowed over time.

I have to go to work soon. But I’ll be coming back to these thoughts tonight.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

*A 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria: *

• *She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels $370]). *
• *She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free). *
• *She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband’s (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay. *
• She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free) SOURCE
  does not sound like it is any harder to get an aboriton in Israel . It actaully looks like Jewish Law has made it easier to get an abortion not make it less restrictive

Please note that Isarael is generally a secular nation despite its strong ties to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In this sense, I would actually argue alongside Valke2 and stillsmallvoice that the view of the nation of Israel do not necessarilly reflect the views of Rabbinical Judaism.

More often than not, the laws within Israel can be seen to be more in league with the more Zionist aspects of Judaism, something which Rabbinical Judaism strongly disagrees (in some areas) with if I recall correctly.

PS: Gah! I’m going to be late for work if i don’t get going.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Mr. Ex Nihilo is pretty close. Our 1977 abortion law is a travesty & an abomination that the religious parties have condemned and would love to see amended to conform with (orthodox) Jewish law. Unfortunately, democracy being what is, we do not have enough support in the Knesset (yet!) to change it. This efrat.org.il/en/ is a very dedicated organization that works to convince pregnant women who are considering abortions not to go through with it.

But, Phineas’s wife, like Rachel, is not the example that you think it is. Like Rachel, the text clearly states that she had already begun to give birth, when abortion is no longer permitted even to save the mother’s life. Like the case of Rachel, this one supports our view very nicely. Have…an oatmeal cookie this time!

Be well!

ssv

P.S. I’m off to London early Sunday morning & won’t be back until late Thursday night. My access to a computer will be very sporadic & I may be off-line until then.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Um, quoth the great Homer Simpson :bowdown: , “Your point being?”

The point being that Judaism allows what you saw in that picture to be done to innocent Jewish children in the womb when the mother’s life is at risk.

stillsmallvoice:

Those photos are nothing I haven’t seen before, more than once. So, what is your point?

My next point is that I’m actually trying to understand the difference between Judaism and Catholicism on this matter.

As far as I understand, the Jewish view that abortions are sometimes permitted does not stem from a desire to terminate the life of the child as many claim. It stems from what is perceived to be respect for (and protection of) the life of the mother in these more extreme situations. In other words, looking at what is perceived to be ‘more just’ in the face of one’s choice between two terrible outcomes, the Rabbis sometime permit these abortions to be done. But, in allowing for this, the Rabbis are, for preceived practical reasons, permitting one to deliberately terminate the life of the child within the womb. In other words, it is concluded that sometimes it is justified to terminate an innocent lesser life in order to save another greater innocent life. To do so, in these more extreme situations, brings out the greater good by aborting the child within the womb.

As far as I understand, the Catholic view that abortions are never to be permitted does not stem from a desire to terminate the life of the mother as many claim. It stems from what is perceived to be respect for (and protection of) the life of the child in these more extreme situations. In other words, looking at what is perceived to be ‘more just’ in the face of one’s choice between two terrible outcomes, the Bishops never permit these abortions to be done. But, in forbidding this, the Bishops are, for preceived moral reasons, allowing a natural process to take its course regardless of what the outcome might be. In other words, it is concluded that it is never justified to terminate an innocent lesser life in order to save another greater innocent life. To do so, in these more extreme situations, brings out the greater good by allowing the chance for both to live even if the mother will die due to complications during birth.

'Cause unless you can prove to me that the dead & mutilated fetus in the picture was aborted from a Jewish woman who had secured the specific assent of a qualified orthodox rabbi to have the abortion, I’m at an utter loss as to what your point is.

Are you saying that I need to provide an image of an aborted Jewish baby in order to prove that Orthodox Jewish people allow abortions to happen?

I don’t get what you’re getting at.

Of course Jewish babies are aborted-- and this is even allowed under these very strict situations by Orthodox Rabbis if I recall correctly. Even you admit this much stillsmallvoice.

How else do you think Jewish babies are aborted?

Is there any more humane way to abort these Jewish babies within the womb when the mother’s life is at risk?
stillsmalvoice:

We actually agree on quite a lot here. We both absolutely oppose abortion as an after-the-fact means of birth control. In fact, the only circumstances in which orthodox Judaism permits an abortion is to save the life of the mother, provided that the birth process has not begun and/or the fetus would not be viable if delivered by c-section or an induced vaginal birth, provided that such a c-section or induced vaginal birth would not endanger the mother’s life. This aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abortion_in_Jewish_Law.asp is a very good article that sets forth the orthodox Jewish view in some detail.

I understand and respect that very much stillsmallvoice.

That’s why I’ve been speaking up strongly against others when they attempt to brand all of Judaism as being vehemently pro-death in any way, shape or form.

My only argument against Orthodox Judaism is the methods undertaken when a Jewish woman’s life is in danger due to complications in their pregnancy. There’s no way I can condone an innocent child being ripped apart in the womb, or having saline salution being injected into them, or otherwise being terminated in some cruel manner as abortions are done today. And even if the methods were conceivably made so innoculous that the baby felt no pain at all, the delibate termination of the innocent child within the womb consists of a deliberate murder regardless of how one dresses it up.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

By the way, in the link you provided, I read the following…

There is a difference of opinion regarding abortion for adultery or in other cases of impregnation from a relationship with someone Biblically forbidden. In cases of rape and incest, a key issue would be the emotional toll exacted from the mother in carrying the fetus to term. In cases of rape, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach allows the woman to use methods which prevent pregnancy after intercourse.

To be honest, this seems to be a potential teaching which is in sharp contrast to the Hebrew Scriptures…

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Admittedly, no child is mentioned.

But I am left wondering if modern Judaism stresses that a woman who is not pledged to be married must marry the man who rapes her.

 

[Valke2]

*A 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria: *

• *She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels $370]). *
  QUOTE]

Israel is not a theocracy. THe laws of the government are not always the same as the halacha (the laws of Judaism). Would you look at the laws of the USA and determine that they define Christianity?

 

[Valke2]

As far as I understand, the Jewish view that abortions are sometimes permitted does not stem from a desire to terminate the life of the child as many claim. It stems from what is perceived to be respect for (and protection of) the life of the mother in these more extreme situations.

.

Essentialy. When one has to choose between the potential human and the known human, Judaism chooses the known human.

As far as I understand, the Catholic view that abortions are never to be permitted does not stem from a desire to terminate the life of the mother as many claim. It stems from what is perceived to be respect for (and protection of) the life of the child in these more extreme situations.

.

Ok. I never heard anyone argue that Catholicism ever desires to terminate the life of the mother, but the concern for the fetus makes sense.

My only argument against Orthodox Judaism is the methods undertaken when a Jewish woman’s life is in danger due to complications in their pregnancy. There’s no way I can condone an innocent child being ripped apart in the womb, or having saline salution being injected into them, or otherwise being terminated in some cruel manner as abortions are done today.

But, as has been posted here, the Church permits medical procedures on the mother, in certain situations that will have the unintended but inescapble effect of aborting the fetus. Karin disagrees with me on this, but that seems to be dodging the theological bullet and, in effect, endorsing the theology of Judaism, which places a higher priority on the life of the mother.

 

[Valke2]

Admittedly, no child is mentioned.

But I am left wondering if modern Judaism stresses that a woman who is not pledged to be married must marry the man who rapes her.

From what I understand, that law is to protect the rights of the woman. Because her chances of getting married decreased dramaticaly after the rape. You also have to read between the lines a little bit. If a father discovered his daughter had been with a man, “rape” could be assumed as a means of obligating the man to marry the woman. I don’t think that even in biblical times the woman was forced to marry a man who really raped her.

 

[Karin]

*A 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria: *

• *She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels $370]). *
  QUOTE]

Israel is not a theocracy. THe laws of the government are not always the same as the halacha (the laws of Judaism). Would you look at the laws of the USA and determine that they define Christianity?
Silly me I thought since Israel was founded/made for the Jewish people, that some of their laws would reflect their religious beliefs
As to the US and their laws…the USA was never founded as a catholic country to begin with…where as Israel was founded as a jewish country for the jewish people from the start.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;1585405:

Silly me I thought since Israel was founded/made for the Jewish people, that some of their laws would reflect their religious beliefs
As to the US and their laws…the USA was never founded as a catholic country to begin with…where as Israel was founded as a jewish country for the jewish people from the start.

Some of their laws do. I don’t think you are silly. You just need to educate yourself a bit more on how Israeli government works.

 

[Karin]

Some of their laws do. I don’t think you are silly. You just need to educate yourself a bit more on how Israeli government works.

Valke2…you missed the sarcasm in the “silly me”
As to understanding how the Israel goverment works…I’ll pass unless I decide to move to Israel then I will learn more as their laws do not effect my every day life…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

From what I understand, that law is to protect the rights of the woman.

Agreed.

Valke2:

Because her chances of getting married decreased dramaticaly after the rape.

Agreed even more. I get frustrated when I hear anti-religion types try to make these Scriptures into something anti-woman.

Many of the cleanliness laws, as far as I can tell, have nthing to do with ostrasizing women. They were provided by God to give them sanctuary during their moments of frailty.

Valke2:

You also have to read between the lines a little bit. If a father discovered his daughter had been with a man, “rape” could be assumed as a means of obligating the man to marry the woman.

That’s actually a view I partially share too. I think most cases were actually not a violent rape but actually more of a seduction on the part of the man against the woman.

Valke2:

I don’t think that even in biblical times the woman was forced to marry a man who really raped her.

Here’s where we disagree. While I think most cases of sex were not a rape per se, it still seems clear to me that they ‘must’ marry them even in the negative sense of rape.

The Scriptures seem unequivocal about this too to be fair.

But, getting to the point, I’m not really looking to argue about the nature of rape and seduction in regards to innocent Jewish women.

Rather, I’m curious if modern Judaism teaches things like this today-- ie., if this kind of seduction happened today, would the man ‘have’ to marry the woman?

Does the woman even have a choice in this matter?

If not, then why not-- especially when the Hebrew Scriptures are so clear on this point?

Likewise, if this did change since the time of ancient Judaism, then why did it change?

I ask this because, as far as I can tell, this teaching does not appear to be directly associated with the shift from Temple worship to Synagogue.

 

[Valke2]

Agreed.

Agreed even more. I get frustrated when I hear anti-religion types try to make these Scriptures into something anti-woman.

Many of the cleanliness laws, as far as I can tell, have nthing to do with ostrasizing women. They were provided by God to give them sanctuary during their moments of frailty.

That’s actually a view I partially share too. I think most cases were actually not a violent rape but actually more of a seduction on the part of the man against the woman.

Here’s where we disagree. While I think most cases of sex were not a rape per se, it still seems clear to me that they ‘must’ marry them even in the negative sense of rape.

The Scriptures seem unequivocal about this too to be fair.

But, getting to the point, I’m not really looking to argue about the nature of rape and seduction in regards to innocent Jewish women.

Rather, I’m curious if modern Judaism teaches things like this today-- ie., if this kind of seduction happened today, would the man ‘have’ to marry the woman?

Does the woman even have a choice in this matter?

If not, then why not-- especially when the Hebrew Scriptures are so clear on this point?

Likewise, if this did change since the time of ancient Judaism, then why did it change?

I ask this because, as far as I can tell, this teaching does not appear to be directly associated with the shift from Temple worship to Synagogue.

Not sure where you’re going with that last sentence.
The violated woman ("Na’arah) or her father can refuse the marriage. The violator has to pay a fine only under such circumstances (keep in mind this is in addition to any penalties under the law of the nation). The woman’s consent to such a marriage has been considered implied.