avram
“Oh? Is there a consistent definition?”
Not at all. And different poskim would reach differnt conclusioions too. Which posek should the law follow? R’ Moshe or the Tzitz Eliezer?
“So I respectfully disagree with what seems to be your assertion that the medical definition of danger is stricter than Judaism’s,”
thats not my assertion at all. My assertion is thatthey are different. And most OB’s Ive spoken too (especially frum ones) laughed at the thought of a otherwise preganant woman fasting being dangerous. The one sitting next to me when I mentioned your non-Jewish OB’s comment said “puk chazi”
“or that there is any real consistent definition at all. “
There absolutly is not! Thats why a blanket law is so dangerous. It is crucial that they be judged on a case bycase basis. This has been my position all along.
“Again, it seems like a big assumption to me that the “medical” definition (or to be more accurate with what we’re discussing, legislative definition interpreted by medical practitioners) will be stricter than the halachic one”
Its not assumption, it is based on real life experience. (I was not directly involved in either but do have first hand knowledge of both among others) Specifcly a case of assault Rch”l and Edwards syndorm. It was hard for the medical practioners to argue that either of these put the mother’s life at risk more thanthe average pregnancy. As for the psak both women got…
“Here’s the thing: most abortions in the US are done for economic reasons or due to fear of disruption to life. “
this si without question true. But 1) Be aware that by stopping those you WILL be stopping frum women from getting (safe) abortions in very very few cases. You can argue that this is a small price to pay. and while I disagree i DO hear that.
2) banning abortion doesnt actually prevent them it just makes them less safe. But again you can still argue that this is beneficial to society.
“Babies are blessings, not burdens, and this message should be reinforced.”
amen veamein!