Is abortion Murder?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Is abortion Murder?

Viewing 14 posts - 51 through 64 (of 64 total)
  • Author
  • #2090557

    “Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.
    Surprise surprise, lo hada”m.”

    who said that?


    “No reasonable person thinks that abortion is not murder.”

    This is offensive the Achiezer, Seridei Eish, Maharit , R’ Yaakov Emdedn Tzitz eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman, chavas Yair, Minhas chinuch were all reasonable people.
    Sure you can argue with them. But to say they weren’t reasonable isn’t nice to say the least

    “Stop being motzi Shem Ra on one of the gedolei hador and gonask mechila. Alternatively,learn how to read before quoting someone.”

    If you can’t identify the “Someone quoted R Shlomo Zalman as being mattir abortions.” I expect you to ask mechila and/or learn to read before quoting someone


    21 late term abortions in Texas yesterday.

    AR-15s are very efficient.

    AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle was used in the bloodshed Tuesday at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, which ended when police stormed a classroom and killed him. He legally bought the rifle and a second one like it last week, just after his birthday on May 16, authorities said.


    Every time abortion comes up, many posters mistakenly comment something along the lines of
    “…abortion is only allowed if the mother’s physical life is in danger,…”

    It is worth noting that in 1989 Rabbi Zwiebel at the behest of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah submitted an amicus brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

    “For the reasons stated above, amicus curiae Agudath Israel of America respectfully submits that Roe v. Wade’s holding that all abortions are expressions of a constitutional right that is “fundamental” should be overruled; that abortion should be deemed a “fundamental” right only where necessary to preserve the life of the mother OR WHERE MANDATED BY THE MOTHER’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; and that Missouri’s legislative “finding” that human life begins at conception should be struck down as a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause.
    (emphasis added)

    This line appears over and over again in the brief “Thus, even if the right to most abortions is not fundamental, the right to some abortions — those necessary to preserve maternal life and those mandated by a woman’s religious beliefs — is.”

    In fact It seems EVERY TIME the phrase “to protect maternal life” appears it is immediately followed by “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief’s”

    The idea that the ONLY abortions allowed is to protect the life of the mother, is not the Torah True (TM) approach



    I understand the line “those mandated by a woman’s religious beliefs” not as a new category. It is the same category as “to protect maternal life”, but the Agudah does not want the courts to define what the Torah calls “to protect maternal life”. So they added this line of ” a woman’s religious beliefs” This is exactly what I quoted from Rabbi Tendler zatsal, that what the Torah calls maternal life and how the American Judicial system define it, are 2 different worlds.


    It sound like maybe the religious beliefs caviat is also about protecting women having abortions before 40 days, where there is more room for leniency in halacha, especially since this was in the context of a law banning abortion from the moment of conception.



    Your understanding is exactly right .

    In practice it is this way as well



    Great point, I didn’t think of that distinction. Though worth noting that R’ Moshe does not make this distinction IIRC.

    to clarify what I meant by “In practice it is this way as well” I meant in practice Poskim use a “looser” (or stricter depending on your frame of reference) definition of “life at risk” than doctors would


    Actually, doctors use a looser description of life at risk than poskim.



    Actually not.
    And of course if it where true, there would be no need to stick in that phrase multiple times.

    But ok, i’ll bite. What was R’ Zweibel (and the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah of America on whose behalf he was writing) looking to add wit h the phrase “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” If it didn’t add anything to “necessary to preserve the life of the mother”?

    If it was once, fine I agree don’t be medayek in every word but it is every single time.

    Why not just say “necessary to preserve the life of the mother” And thats it, if yo uthink that is Halacha’s approach


    Don’t parse a legal letter from Rabbi Zweibel Esq. like a Chazal.


    What if we rephrase this entire conversation to be talking about the Ubbar when it is less than 40 days old? What shteit in halacha? What about US law?


    Lol UJM

    you don’t need to parse a letter to not e an “extra” phrase written over an over and over and over (literally)
    If you don’t know why he wrote it, just say so.
    My question is pashut pshat what does “and those mandated by a woman’s religious belief” add that he was careful to include it EVERY time.

    I know why, Jackk knows, Aseh knows.
    B’seder you don’t know no shame in saying so


    direct quotes from R Zwiebels discussion in Tradition: note that, as I said before here, we are not supporting either extreme, and also the 3rd parthat we have to accept that freedom for us means also freedom for someone else who disagrees with us, so we don’t need to fight for every last

    decision of our Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that we should enter the legal fray a.. o dispel the notion, conveyed by various non-Orthodox and secular Jewish groups, that unfettered reproductive freedom (i.e., abortion on demand) was consonant with Jewish values.

    we advanced three major points: (1) that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned; (2) that the right to abortion should nonetheless be preserved in the extraordinary case when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or where her religious beliefs require that the pregnancy be terminated; and (3) that Missouri’s legislative finding that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, which could jeopardize the right to abortion in situations where halakha would demand it, should be struck down as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

    protection of the right to abortion where pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or where her religious beliefs mandate terminating her pregnancy could result in abortions in cases where halakha would not permit them: …However, under the American system of law, as R. Goldwasser correctly notes, “religious freedoms granted to one faith must be granted to all,” and sometimes the only way to ensure that our halakhic rights are legally protected is to extend such protection beyond the precise parameters of halakha. That is one of the realities of the imperfect world we inhabit as we await the arrival of Mashi’ah.

Viewing 14 posts - 51 through 64 (of 64 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.