- This topic has 66 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, a woman has a right to her own body. If she wants to pluck a pimple, fine. She wants to cut off an arm, fine. She wants to kill herself, gesundterheit.
However, once she has a future human in her body, that is NOT just a pimple ! That future human is not hers to decide what to do with it.
Anyone here disagree?The goyim have never held much reverence for life. Who gave us such words as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” (and these terms were both invented in the lifetime of those still living). For much of human history, “infanticide” was regularly practiced. The surprise is some Yidden believe the goyim are civilized. We should be pleasantly surprised that some goyim are finally objecting to mass murder (that’s a hiddush for them).
If that “future human” has been forcibly implanted into her body in a violent rape/case of incest and threatens her physical and psychological/emotional well-being, I respectfully disagree. Call it “rechitza” and whatever you want and I’ll still disagree.
She has absolutely no right to kill herself. Even if she is not pregnant.
moishek
“Anyone here disagree?”
almost everybody does from both a halachic and logical standpoint.
“Yes, a woman has a right to her own body.”
I can’t understand how a frum Jew can write this. absolutely not. Disagree completely. A frum Jew cannot get a tattoo, can’t just chop of a limb that they don’t like, can
‘t eat what they want can’t wear what they want etc etcCutting of an arm? Absolutly forbidden. Even plastic surgery is a machlokes and not so clear.
suicide? Gezunterheit?
What are you talking aboutThe only rechitzah involved is that she wants to wipe her hands clean of the “problem”.
It’s a tragedy if someone is assaulted. Likewise, if someone gets robbed, it doesn’t entitle them to take someone else’s money.
The pregnant victim was wronged, but that has no bearing on her bearing a child. Don’t punish the child for the crimes of his father.
Such cases also account for less than 1% of abortions.
Why is the emotional well being of one person more important than the literal life of another, innocent person?
If someone’s bullying me and causing me emotional harm, does that give me a right to kill and dismember them?
Is abortion not “violent” too? They crush skulls, sever spines, and if the baby miraculously survives this “health care”, they let it die outside the womb, writhing in pain because they won’t put it in a simple incubator. Because someone else chose that this baby shouldn’t be allowed to live. It’s evil, and the word you were looking for is retzicha, murder.
Moishke,
So why do you support the party that wants this to continue?
GHadorah: What’s the difference whether the unborn child developed through an involuntary action or a party unknown? If killing an unborn child is an affront to G-d, certainly no less than thievery, idolatry, arson or manslaughter, then either scenario should be the same as far as it being impermissible.
modified
If everyone is in agreement that there are situations where abortion is acceptable or mandatory, then why not keep it legal so that poskim can make the determination instead of leaving that determination to the legislature? It is entirely possible that poskim matir abortion in more instances than what most of you think.
Mainstream pro life legislation nowadays allows for abortions to save the mother, which is the only really necessary circumstance that halacha would (for Jews, not clear for goyim) mandate it as a necessity.
If we’re going to get into preferences, as in, if someone (insert italics) wants to rely on the tzitz eliezer (which I don’t think would be allowed since rav moshe was mara de’asra) in cases of deformities…nu nu, so you won’t be able to. You’ll have to bring a neshoma into the world. It’s not the kind of thing we’d fight about. We don’t believe in “rights”.
It’s better than the alternative of permitting goyim to do what is considered flat out, capital offense murder, since that’s all they’ve been doing. As stated, there are no states that are pushing the old hard line Catholic nonsense stance(most goyim are not Catholic) about the baby being purer etc. The states that have banned abortion ALWAYS allow it in cases where the mothers life is at risk, which for yidden is the only exception MANDATED by halacha. Again, we shouldn’t care about the whims and mere desires of people when the alternative is to allow infanticide.
if a lady is alloyed to do abortion to her own body because it is hers and dont tell me what to do then how could you force people to take vaccines
er: Killing in self-defence is also permissible and/or mandatory sometimes. Do you therefore suggest that manslaughter/homicide be legalized, in order not to outlaw instances of self-defense that’s halachicly permitted/mandatory but illegal under secular law?
“if a lady is alloyed to do abortion to her own body because it is hers and dont tell me what to do then how could you force people to take vaccines”
Great question.
IT is becasue vaccines tend ** to affect people around them, abortion does not*. Furthermore vaccines protect people themselves which is in the State’s interest too similar to Seatbelts, abortion does not (in fact banning abortion would put peopl’es healh at risk since it would lead to unsafe abortions, Note: this is not an argument I find compelling since if it is wrong, its is wrong and should be banned we don;t not ban things becasue people break the law; we don;t avoid barbed wire outside sensitive buildings because it would lead to thieves cutting themselves, but it is still worth noting)
*Aye you will say abortion dos affect the life of another, namely the baby. This isn t true. Since in their view (and according to most in halachas’ view as well) a fetus is not a “life” as it is totally dependent on another. Lest yo usay, a baby is also dependent on another. There is a clear distinction, a baby’s life depends on ANYONE else. Not one person, a mother who can’t take care of a child does not have to, she can drop off the baby and “society” will take care of it. Such an option does not exist during pregnancy forcing a woman to serve as an incubator for an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is not at all similar to forcing a vaccine to help protect herself/society
Hope this helps
** Don;t get caught up on a particular vaccine that may not help others. I may concede that that one can’t be forced, (though again EVEN there it may ok to force if it helps her, I ma on the fence)
AviraDeArah: well written position. But I am personally not knowledgeable whether it is true that saving the mother is “the only really necessary [or preferable/allowable] circumstance.” I am generally aware of more circumstances, however. And not just cases of deformity. It sure would be good to know.
Curious: why is this issue so important to our community? Most abortions are undertaken by goyim. If you say it’s to prevent any Jew from getting an abortion, then you should oppose the death penalty too, correct? But if it’s because goyim aren’t halachically allowed to have abortions, since when do yidden so concern themselves with what goyim are and aren’t allowed to do a al pi halacha?
If we as Jews have our own code of law, why should the laws of the secular government concern us? If the states or the federal government want to legalize abortion, I don’t think it’s my business to object.
Ubiq – question. If you saw a detailed video of a 2nd trimester fetus, with its organs, its heart beating, its brain firing neurons, its limbs developing…would you crush its skull, sever its spinal chord and dismember him?
I’m just wondering if you have that in you, because if it’s not technically a nefesh for yidden, it’s still a baby to our senses, and it takes a ruthless murderer to kill it.
For goyim it’s called a nefesh anyway, so your statement is just plainly against the pasuk. Just flat out ignorance.
Er,
One of the reasons that the whole city of shchem was killed was because they didn’t bring shchem to din (which is one of the 7 mitzvos) so they were מחויב מיתה
Er, we concern ourselves with the actions of our surrounding host countries for three reasons. One is kovod shomayim – lesaken olam bemalchus shakai – we want the world to keep Hashem’s laws, and this is included undeniably in the 7 mitzvos. We care when others sin, because while goyim may not have the same spiritual impact as we do, their actions still should be in line as much as possible with Torah, for Hashem’s honor.
The 2nd reason is that society affects us. “Rak ain yiras Hashem”, avrohom said when he was travelling in gerar. We don’t want to live in a society which condones infanticide, same sex marriages, , edited any other evil that is forbidden to goyim as well as us. We want to shield ourselves from influence, as you can see many posters here copy and paste their attitudes straight from feminism and western values.
3rd, oy lerasha and oy leshecheino. If Hashem punishes the goyim for infanticide, and we happen to live here, we will not be spared. Especially if we had the chance to protest, as chazal say(avodah zara 18a) “one who has the ability to protest but does not is punished on his account(the one who sins)”
provaxx, you’d be okay with the secular government enacting laws permitting public nudity, teaching public school children that the Aryan race is superior or even legalizing manslaughter, since Goyish laws have nothing to do with Yidden?
Avira
“question. If you saw a detailed video of a 2nd trimester fetus, with its organs, its heart beating, its brain firing neurons, its limbs developing…would you crush its skull, sever its spinal chord and dismember him?”
I have. and no I wouldn’t
(even if medically necessary I don’t think I could. Definitely if she was being led to be executed al pi beis din, and they ruled to perform the abortion first I can’t imagine being able to do that. I don’t know what that changes)why do you ask?
“For goyim it’s called a nefesh anyway, so your statement is just plainly against the pasuk. Just flat out ignorance.”
My focus is/was on yiddenprovaxx: If the democratically elected secular government decides to build camps and gas chambers and round up some type of goyim (i.e. NOT Yidden, this time) and kill them (and as has was the case 80 years ago, only volunteers do the actual rounding up and killing), will you it be your business to object?
(To clarify my “I have” refers to the opening clause: “if you saw….” )
ubiq: If a pregnant woman is being executed by Beis Din, the Halacha is to abort the baby first?
ujm
Yes
Rambam Sanhedrin 12:4
מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא יֵהָרֵג בְּיוֹמוֹ. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה עֻבָּרָה אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּמַכִּין אוֹתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַהֵרָיוֹן עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הַוָּלָד תְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵדThe democrats like to make the exception to the rule and apply it as the rule in almost every case
Less than 1/2 of the 22 states that have approved anti abortion laws have exceptions for the health of the mother, rape, dead fetus, incest or ectopic pregnancy. (Read these laws before making assumptions.) Factually on a national level dilation and extraction abortions were outlawed in 2003. Prior to this the majority of states (28) took it upon themselves to outlaw this procedure. It is estimated that 20% of all pregnancies result in a miscarriage or natural abortion. None of the states passing these laws made exceptions for legal dilation and curettage after a natural miscarriage. Fetal remains in a womans uterus after a natural abortion can put a woman at serious risk of sepsis, death or infertility.
I recognize that this is a very emotional subject for some. I think it’s also important to temper these emotions with factual info since it’s obvious most of the folks writing on this thread have not read these new laws.
It is typical of Republicans to act without considering the consequences of their actions.
They do it in all areas.
Going to war with no idea to pay for it and no plan to assist veterans of the war.
Spending indiscriminately and Raising the Deficit.
Enacting policies that discriminate and are racist.
Lowering Taxes on Rich with no plan to replace the lost taxes.
Lack of Infrastructure Spending.
No Health Care Plan.
No plan for Immigrants.
Ensuring Voting is as difficult as possible.
Build a wall that Mexico will pay for.
Electing a corrupt businessman for President.
Losing an election but claiming that it was stolen.
Attempting a coup against the America Government.It takes the Democrats to think these things through and show the shallow thinking of Republicans.
Point of information. Or don’t let the facts influence your opinion. 11 of the 22 states that have currently enacted these restrictive laws have zero exceptions for incest, rape and maternal health. Unfortunately it is up to the woman to prove that incest/rape has caused the pregnancy in those states. Only two have very general exceptions for maternal health and none mention ectopic pregnancies or removing a dead fetus to protect the womans life and health.
Oh and FWIW, ‘partial birth abortions’ medically known as dilation and extraction, have been illegal in the US since 2003. Prior to that date individual states individual states enacted laws forbidding this procedure.
Seriously read the laws before you make some off the wall generalizations that have zero factual basis.
AviraDeArah, again, well said as to why we are concerned about laws as to non-Jews. I was not disputing the need to be concerned about this, btw.
What it comes down to for me is the issue of whether or not poskim actually limit their justification of abortion to the situations that lawmakers would if they had their druthers. Makes sense?
I’ll also add my belief that our society’s ethics and norms are only partially directed by laws. And in the case of contentious issues, including abortion, fighting about it politically can (and has) backfired. Partially as a result of fighting against abortion directly, abortion became more than half the population’s political and personal identity. So it doesn’t help/improve your first 2 points (lesaken olam and “society affects us”).Part 2.
Let’s start with the fallacy that, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued in the leaked draft, overruling Roe would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Alluring as this may sound, it won’t happen. As Harvard Law School professor Richard Fallon wrote in a 2007 law review article, “The notion that by overruling Roe the Supreme Court could extract itself from controversial assessments of the constitutionality of state antiabortion legislation is not just a fallacy. It is a delusion.”
If anything, overruling Roe would expand court involvement by inviting action in state courts, testing the scope of what is protected under state constitutions. This isn’t imaginary: In Michigan, Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer recently asked her state’s Supreme Court to preemptively address the question.
Meanwhile, federal courts, no matter how much they might want to get out of the business of deciding abortion cases, would face complex questions of constitutional law. Under Alito’s draft, abortion restrictions must only have a “rational basis” to pass constitutional muster. Permissive as this is, it will still present questions: Would it be rational for a state to prioritize fetal life over the life of the mother? Does protecting the fetus take priority over serious risk to maternal health? Is it rational for a state to prohibit contraceptive methods, such as intrauterine devices or morning-after pills, which prevent implantation of a fertilized embryo? Can a state prohibit in vitro fertilization because it involves the destruction of such embryos?Amil: The fact is that out of the 50 United States, not one state outlaws abortion when it is required to save the mother’s life. In other words, all 50 of the 50 states permit abortion if it is necessary to save the mother.
That’s all that counts. The rest is commentary.
Hopefully in the very very near future we will Im Yirtzah Hashem see states outlawing abortion in all cases other than when it is needed to save the mother’s life. For any other abortion illegally performed, we hope to see criminal penalties resulting in the so-called “doctors” or other practitioners committing that murderous crime locked up in prison for a very long time. And in state with courage and conviction will also imprison mothers who voluntarily choose to illegally obtain an abortion when her life was not in danger.
Part 3.
SCOTUS think that if they just overturn RvW , their jobs are done.
Well the job that they were hired to do will be complete, but they are not done.Sorry to disappoint members of SCOTUS. It will be the beginning of SCOTUS and the courts becoming more involved in the intricacies of Abortion than they ever have been. Now they have to decide every new law and every new case that will arise from their decision.
I wish them much hatzlocha.Joseph, no need to lie, I understand you have very deep and sincere feelings on the subject but only 11 of those states who have passed restrictive abortion rights considers a mother’s health. If you will read the legislation in question you would know this.
Amil, all information I’ve found online(looked at pro murder sites too, like guttmacher (what a name!) make mention of allowing abortions for “the big three” exceptions, two of which are not very reasonable, as explained, but saving the mother’s life is always on the list.
It just is. Can you provide information from a credible, non social media hack source to the contrary?
They mention the big three, and some say mother’s health, which is not a legitimate reason
Amil, you are again being dishonest. I specifically referenced “when it is required to save the mother’s life.” I purposely did not state the ambiguous concept of “considers a mother’s health”. If having a baby will strain the mother’s mental health for the next 18 years, that is not a valid reason to kill the baby. Indeed, any reason other than to save the mother’s life should never permit abortion.
Every single of the 50 states (plus DC) permit, under all state laws, an abortion when in its absence the mother will lose her life.
jackk> If anything, overruling Roe would expand court involvement by inviting action in state courts, testing the scope of what is protected under state constitutions.
pls, do not mix up federal and state courts. It is legitimate for state courts to resolve state issues. States are, at least as originally envisioned, full-fledged decision makers, they are not limited as federal government is/was to specific issues. And, as you mention later, some issues will probably come back to the federal courts, but it will not be such a problematic issue as forcing decisions for the whole country when different states hold vastly different opinions.
Each of the 22 states that have passed these restrictive abortion laws has a web site. I choose to use the states links to their laws to read what the laws actually say. You are all free to do the same. I read the actual statues as adopted and not the legislative summaries.
Arkansas – Act 309, 5-61-401, et seq., which prohibits all abortions save those necessary to save the life of the mother.
Alabama 13A. Criminal Code § 13A-13-7 unless the same is necessary to preserve her life or health and done for that purpose, shall on conviction be
Oklahoma Tit. 63§§1-730 to 741; 21§§713 to 714; 21§861; 21§684taking life of viable fetus unless necessary to preserve life, health of mother
Mississippi; shall be guilty of a felony unless the same were done by a duly licensed, practicing physician:
(a) Where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life;I’m not going to read every states code, because i don’t have that much free time. Every random state i read on the list of states that have trigger bans and that are set to ban abortion have this on the books.
Please provide information to the contrary, asi have invested time already in providing evidence against your statement.
Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz beautifully explains how your Halachik Position does not necessarily dictate your political position in a video from Ohr Somayach titled How should we view the possible overturning of Roe V Wade? Q&A- Vaping, Zionism & Roe vs Wade (Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz)
Jack, how exactly does that make sense?
You also can’t have your cake and eat it too; you and others discuss halacha as it suits your goal, then shift to this separation of church and state mentality when backed into a corner.
Would you mind sharing with us what he says? He’s a respected person, i doubt he said that you can vote against halacha.
Rabbi Breitowitz clearly said that the ONLY exception permitting abortion is if the mother’s life is in danger. Any consideration other than the mother’s life, he said, does not permit abortion for either Jews or gentiles.
Jack- thanks for that
Listened to it – he says that advocating the prohibition of abortion is the “pashut pshat”, that we should do. He then expresses another viewpoint, “one can make an argument” – without saying that he agrees with it at all – that there’s a danger of goyim going too far and prohibiting abortion when halacha would allow it, namely if a woman is suicidal where he deems it pikuach nefesh(venimuko imo, many hold that it is pikuach nefesh)
He ends it with saying clearly “Many people would say that’s wrong”Tl/dr, you took that one line WAY out of context and your statement is motzi shem ra on rabbi breitowitz. He didn’t mean that we shouldn’t apply halacha in theory, but rather that we need to – in the argument he presents but DOES NOT necessarily agree with, worry about the secular law infringing on halacha.
Big difference.
Rabbi breitowitz, also, kevodo benakomo omedes, is not rav moshe feinstein. Nor is he rav avigdor miller, who advocated endlessly for the pro life movement.
Avira, it is possible to not want to impose halakha in US politics, and respect constitutional restrictions and federal/state issues. I am not sure where the boundary is. On some issues, I feel like we should try to improve the world, on others to stay away. Maybe different people feel differently about specific issues.
Aaq,
An additional point is that the christians on the court will no lony be able to rely on RvW after they overturn it.
They will have to rule on the legality of cases coming from all 50 states. On some of them, they are going to have to decide, will I rule as per my religion or according to the constitution of the US.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.