Why are republicans pro-life?

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Why are republicans pro-life?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #616183

    newbee
    Member

    Dont they realize that the vast majority of lives they will be saving will become democratic voters?

    #1095711

    Joseph
    Participant

    On principle.

    #1095712

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Based on your logic, I suppose Republicans wouldn’t oppose people who engage in shooting sprees at Democratic events?

    The Wolf

    #1095713

    cause democrats are suicidal i.e. pro death

    #1095714

    newbee
    Member

    It was a sarcastic question.

    On the other hand: the democrats dont care about the quality of the country or the right of other immigrants who are trying to come to the US legally- since they allow illegal immigration in order to increase democratic voters.

    #1095716

    akuperma
    Participant

    The Republicans have always focused on principles going back to their origins in the 19th century, and the Democrats have always focuses on being the “populist” party focused on pandering to voters rather than principles. Republicans always made morality a factor in public life.

    P.S. Who you vote in America is NOT determined genetically and the correlation between who your grandfather voted for and who you vote for is very weak.

    #1095717

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    Those who my grandfather voted for aren’t running now.

    #1095718

    BarryLS1
    Participant

    Too many Jews have been conditioned to vote for Democrats since the Roosevelt days. What they don’t understand, is that this isn’t the Democratic Party of old. It’s the 60-70’s radicals who are the current breed of Democrats.

    If you read the speeches of JFK, Ed Muskie and Hubert Humphrey, along with the speeches of Ronald Reagan, you’d be hard pressed to see a significant difference.

    Democrats had claimed to be the party of the working class. Now, they are the party of the poor, in that they love the poor so much, that they want to keep them that way. The more the dependency class, the more voters they have and that highlights the only real success of the Obama Presidency,i.e, increasing the dependency class.

    #1095719

    akuperma
    Participant

    BarryLS1: But even in the past (back when JFK was elected for favoring tax cuts, opposing deficit spending, favoring strong national defense, and supporting traditional social institutions regardless of what he did in private), the Democrats were still into populist pandering whereas the Republicans were into principles.

    #1095720

    simcha613
    Participant

    I think I lean more towards pro choice on this one and I’m surprised that more frum Jews aren’t. Pro lifers want to make all abortions illegal, even in situations where halacha would allow it. I would rather live in a society that allows us to get abortions when halachically acceptable then that prevents us from getting abortions when it is halachically acceptable. It’s the lesser of two evils.

    #1095721

    Poster
    Member

    BarryLS1, People that have no money and are dependent on the govt dont care about the diff democratic shtussim. They want to make sure they will continue receiving assistance that they need for their daily lives. Therefore, they vote democrat.

    #1095722

    Joseph
    Participant

    simcha: Don’t cover up your pro-murder stance with sophistry. Most pro-life supporters do support exceptions, i.e. for the mother’s life. In fact, a few days ago when Walker said he doesn’t support any exceptions he took a lot of heat since almost everyone else does. You can support the abolition of abortion with exceptions, as most Americans and most Republicans, politicians and laymen support.

    #1095723

    akuperma
    Participant

    There are very few cases of an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother (in which case, her consent is irrelevant). The halachic approach is that this is still homicide, but it is justifiable homicide (for the same reason that it is lawful to kill someone who is threatening your life). Very few pro-lifers opposed abortions when the issue is saving the mother’s life.

    Once you say it is a parent’s right to kill their kid, you then get into questions such as “is it their duty” if the child is defective, what if the child is merely inferior, what about adults who being old and disabled have no potential for further accomplishments and are just “eaters” rather than producers, what about groups of persons who accomplish little in life but consume many resources and may in fact be a burden due to low productivity and high criminality …. (and thus you have the pro-life argument that legalized abortion puts you on the road to gas chambers and ethnic cleansing).

    #1095724

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    A person who is truly pro-life is also pro the life of the mother.

    #1095725

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    akuperma

    I dont think You know what homicide means.

    As to your “questions”:

    “”is it their duty” if the child is defective,” no

    “what if the child is merely inferior,” They should speak to a super qualified posek. not a politician, which is what simcha said.

    “what about adults who being old and disabled have no potential for further accomplishments and are just “eaters” rather than producers, “

    what about them? Are you asking if retroactivly they could have been aborted?

    “what about groups of persons who accomplish little in life but consume many resources and may in fact be a burden due to low productivity and high criminality …. “

    again whatabout them/ Though

    I am willing to bet you do favor the apital punishment for those with “high criminality” (at least in some cases) Correct me if Im wrong. Though that can hardly be called “pro-life”

    Joseph

    “You can support the abolition of abortion with exceptions,”

    Its harder than you think. The catholic church (as a group) oppose all abortions. period. and if a fetus is a “life” as in “pro-life” why SHOULD there be exceptions? (we have a more nuanced view where it isnt a full life, (according to most poskim) and thus can be aborted in certain limited cases) but the “most americans” you refer to havent given it much thought.

    #1095726

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    akuperma

    Even if you dont define homicide as any killing even lawful (As some (perhaps most) dictionaries do, your statment “The halachic approach is that this is still homicide, but it is justifiable homicide ” is still wrong.

    This has been discussed at length here before but here are some differences recapped:

    1) homicide carries death penalty bemeizid or galus beshogeg. Abortion carries a financial penalty

    2) A kohen who kills can not duchan (even if the killing was justified) To the best of my knowedge a kohein who aborts can duchen.

    Bottom line is I’m sure most would agree that we would want a competent Rav to decide on each case whether abortion was required/allowed or forbidden. I dont think anybody would argue on that point.

    Obviously this isnt an option. The next best thing we have is as simcha613 outlined

    #1095727

    newbee
    Member

    What is the issur for non-Jews to have abortions?

    #1095728

    akuperma
    Participant

    Homicide is killing of a human. It can be deliberate (in English that is “murder”). It can be accidenta. It can be suicide, or by someone authorized by statute to kill people (soliders killing enemy soldiers in war, exeuctioners working for the government, etc.). Homicide in both Jewish and American law can be justified (e.g. in self-defense or in defnese of another) and therefore lawful.

    Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide which may be justifiable homicide. A physician/midwife/surgeon performing an abortion in the rare situation where it is necessary to save the mother’s life, incurs no penalty – similar to how anyone who engages in justifiable homicide incurs no penalty.

    The pro-choice advocatges maintain, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the baby from conception until birth is not alive and as an inanimate mass of tissue has no more legal rights than a tumor or an infected appendix or a wart.

    #1095729

    crispandrefreshing
    Participant

    A prominent rav i know supports no exeptions to abortion since that’s the din by goyim and yidden are always smart enough to get an abortion if needed.

    “A person who is truly pro-life is also pro the life of the mother. “- by goyim that’s not true

    #1095731

    newbee
    Member

    Abortion within the first forty days of the

    pregnancy and also before the fetus has

    completed three months of the pregnancy

    is a much less severe issue than later in the

    pregnancy. Therefore, it is possible to permit an

    abortion within this time period, as long as there

    are as of yet no fetal movements, if there is an

    established risk that the child will be deformed

    and suffer great pain- Tzitz Eliezer 9:51

    “Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide”

    In that case I am sure someone who accidentally causes a woman to have a miscarriage is sent to an ir miklat? No.

    #1095732

    DikDukDuck
    Participant

    For a long time Republican politicians have been elected on conservative votes, they’re trying to maintain that.

    #1095733

    Sam2
    Participant

    R’ Moshe held that abortions are murder, no matter what (after 40 days). The Tzitz Eliezer famously held otherwise.

    #1095734

    Joseph
    Participant

    The Tzitz Eliezer famously held otherwise.

    Can we stop quoting these Shittos please? They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century, most notably (and strongly) R’ Moshe Feinstein.

    #1095735

    screwdriverdelight
    Participant

    lol, joseph.

    (P.S. The tzitz eliezer was a major poseik in the last century.)

    #1095736

    Sam2
    Participant

    Joseph: Also, false. R’ Shlomo Zalman held that this Shittah of the Tzitz Eliezer is one that can be relied on (or, at least, he didn’t outright reject it).

    #1095737

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    joseph

    “Can we stop quoting these Shittos please?”

    Chas veshalom! never!

    “They are wholly and entirely rejected by every major Posek in the last century”

    incorrect, and besides the tzitz eliezer is certainly a bar hachi in these matters

    #1095738

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Akuperma

    Some dictionaries define homicide as the illegal killing, but I conced the point as most say like you.

    “Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide”

    Incorrect. According to some it is and according to most it is not.

    A physician/midwife/surgeon performing an abortion in the rare situation where it is necessary to save the mother’s life, incurs no penalty”

    Even when unjustified he does not incur any of the penalties that homicide incurs. In fact he incurs a very defferent penalty, a financial one (which is not the case for a child < 30 days) Nor does he incur other thing sthat homicide incurs such as not being allowed to duchan.

    Nor do we kill children whent their mothers are chayav misas beis din

    “The pro-choice advocatges maintain, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the baby from conception until birth is not alive and as an inanimate mass of tissue has no more legal rights than a tumor or an infected appendix or a wart.”

    This isnt a scientific question. There is no science behind “legal rights” A tree is alive, that doesnt mean cutting it down is homicide, a leg is alive that doesnt mean amputating is homicide.

    When do you say life begins? fertilization? before fertilization? implantation? The second trimester? viability outside the womb?

    And why at that point?

    Halacha isnt as clear as you think. the first 40 days are called “merely water” I’m pretty sure even R” Moshe doesnt hold the first 40 days are murder. Though it isnt clear what physiologic change takes place at 40 days (the heart starts beating well before that! (nor does it neccesarily matter, it may plausibly be a “chok” at 40 days is tzuros havelad period.) (Keep in mind 40 days are counted differently by halacha and medicine)

    At all points a fetus is described in shas as “its mother’s thigh” This pbviously does not allow for abortion on demand, and is not written in the context of abortion at all (though many poski do bring it in)

    The bottom line is the following:

    If a Woman were to desire an abortion for whatver reason rch”l. Who shoud decide for her.

    I’ll give choices, feel free to add your own:

    1) a SUPER COMPETENT well qualified posek

    2) Her local Rav

    3) you

    4) me

    5) crispandrefreshings’s rav

    6) The US supreme court

    7) State legislature

    8) Congress

    9) The president

    10) somebody else

    #1095739

    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Just to provide context, Joseph’s post was in response to this:

    Why force feed?

    The Wolf

    #1095740

    charliehall
    Participant

    Abortion for non-Jews is prohibited in the discussion of the Noachide laws in Sanhedrin Chapter 7. It even carries a death penalty and some have used that to claim that that makes abortion equivalent to murder or even actual murder. But that sugya also provides for a death penalty for petty theft and nobody is going to claim that petty theft is murder. That sugya also states unequivocably that there is nothing permitted to Jews that is prohibited to non-Jews, so it isn’t that abortion is murder for one and not the other — it is just that the penalties can differ.

    The Roman Catholic Church considers all abortions, even to save the life of the mother, to be murder, and it has managed to prohibit absolutely all abortions in several countries. Pregnant women have been dying as a result.

    This is NOT a theoretical problem. The most recent data in the US indicate that 2% of known pregnancies in the US end as an ectopic pregnancy which is a potentially life-threatening condition for the mother (and must end with the death of the embryo).

    #1095741

    Joseph
    Participant

    Charlie: If it is prohibited to non-Jews, you should be opposing its use by non-Jews. Do you oppose them having abortions?

    No one is promoting permitting theft among non-Jews. Both theft and abortion, both being prohibited, should be opposed.

    #1095742

    Joseph
    Participant

    ubiquitin: So what the Catholic Church took that position. Most American Catholics don’t support having no exceptions nor do most Americans. The vast vast majority of Americans support exceptions. If and when a law is enacted outlawing abortions it will surely have exceptions.

    You can support a law outlawing abortion that has exception for the mother’s life and health, when in danger, and when assaulted. The law can be broadly written to cover virtually any halachic exceptions. There’s no excuse to support a regime permitting abortion-on-demand.

    #1095743

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    “The law can be broadly written to cover virtually any halachic exceptions. “

    virtually isnt good enough.

    and which posek would the law follow? Would it allow for cases of mental anguish (like rape rch”l)? How late in the preganacy?

    I’m sure you know halacha isnt black and white, there are several different (equally valid) shitahs, that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

    #1095744

    Joseph
    Participant

    Baloney. You want to support infanticide and are looking for lame excuses to justify the unjustifiable. And a poor excuse at that.

    Btw, I mentioned assault. It can clearly be written broad enough to cover all basis.

    #1095745

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    Two cvan play at this game:

    Baloney. You want to support your control over women and are looking for lame excuses to justify the unjustifiable. And a poor excuse at that.

    (To be clear I dont actually beleive that, I think you are well intentioned but simply either a) havent throught through the implication of your position b) are not aware of the realities either practical or halachic and/or c) are naive as to what can plausibly be written into a law while remiaing constitutional and meaningful)

    “It can clearly be written broad enough to cover all basis. “

    In order to cover all bases it would either have to say “abortions would be permissible if allowed by her ORthodox Rabbi who is competent and qualified to rule on such matters” or allow abortion on demand.

    Now you can argue with my prmeise, and say that since those halachicly valid abortions are so rare they should be banned to prevent wide-spread abortions. I personally disagree with that, but at least it makes sense. OTherwise there is simply no way to allow for the few halachicly sanctioned abortions

    each case is determined individually. I know of a few cases where women got heter for abortion from Rabbonim that would surprise you, but I am not at liberty to divulge that information.(Granted most were in the first HALACHIC 40 days) Nor would I share to many specifics since each case has to be judged indivdually, and I wouldnt want them generalized.

    #1095746

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    Question for you (though you havent answered my earlier question yet)

    IF you had two candidates with alll things being equal other than their position on abortion candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban in all cases (You indicated you believe “Assault” should be an exception, at the drecent debate rubio said it shouldnt. Walker says there is no case where an abortion is medically neccesary)

    Obviously this is strictly theoretical,as there are no two candiates who could possible disagree on this one thing.

    #1095747

    simcha613
    Participant

    Joseph- I don’t think that’s a fair statement. No one here wants to support infanticide. The fact is, there are legitimate poskim like the Tzitz Eliezer who give heterim for abortions in the very early stages for reasons other than danger to the mother. For example, he allows first trimester abortion of a fetus that would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the seventh month of gestation.

    If there is a bill that would allow abortion when a competent Rav permits it, and forbids all other abortions, I’m all for it. I don’t want Non-Jews having abortions that are assur to them. But if that option isn’t available, I would rather Non-Jews be allowed to have abortions that are forbidden to them if that means Jews are allowed to have abortions that are permitted to them, rather than the opposite. Like I said, it’s the lesser of two evils.

    #1095748

    Joseph
    Participant

    Actually you are correct. We DO want to control men and women in preventing them from doing inappropriate things. Like theft, killing, abortion and destroying property.

    Yes, we know sometimes those things are permitted in exceptional cases. You should be advocating that theft be legalized; after all maybe someone will be starving in remote Alaska and find an empty hut with food and be forced to steal the food just to live, before he can pay it back. Just taking your logic to its logical extreme.

    You are permitting starving Jews to die by not advocating the legalization of theft!

    The fact is that your motives are not what you are representing them to be.

    I addressed the issue with Walker. Read above. And your proposition of either all or none is preposterous and unrealistic. I can ask you a million what ifs. What if you were forced to let die either your boss or your neighbor, who would you let die?

    #1095749

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    i’m sorry you lost me. You claim you addressed the issue with Walker, but it is a simple question and no you have not answered. Granted it is preopsterous and unrealistic (as I said) So I will phrase it in a non-preposterous/unrealistic way.

    Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions (and yes there are candidates who take these view, whether they “take a lot of heat” is irrelevant)?

    Your stealing scenario highlights how little you’ve actually thought about the subject. For several reasons:

    1) “after all maybe someone will be starving in remote Alaska” The cases I referred to are not “maybes” They are real. Obviously they do not make it to the yated or even the New York times, but I know of several frum women who had halachicly sanctioned abortions in the past year alone. Do you know of anybody starving in remote alaska?

    2) Even starving in remote Alaska stealing should still be illegal. Hopefully the judge would have sense to grant clemency and I doubt charges would be filed but there is no need to change the law for that.

    3) If the guy in alaska does steal to survive even if illegal we cna expunge the record no harm done, if a woman does not get a halichly sanctioned abortion and something catastrophic happens you cant really say oops we wrote the law to broadly, sorry.

    4) Abortions dont just happen, in order to be safe you need people who know what they are doing. (Keep in mind countries without legal abortions dont have less abortions they merely have less safe abortions but this is a side point) In other words in that rare emergent case where a woman has a heter for abortion its not like your guy in Alaska who can just take the food legal or not. She needs trained personal available to her.

    As an side you seem to have shifted positions. Are you saying ALL abortions should be banned since the halachicly sanctioned ones are rare? (like in your Alaska example) Because I wouldnt argue with that. I disagree, but that is merely a difference of opinion about which I think reasonable people can disagree

    If you are saying that the halachicly sanctioned cases do not exist, or that they can be worked into a viable constitutionally sound legal system. On either of those points you are simply wrong and there is no room for differing iopinions

    “The fact is that your motives are not what you are representing them to be.”

    How can you possibly now that? What i do know is that your facts are not at all what you are representing them to be. You have very strong opinions on a subject you clearly know so little about

    #1095750

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Oh and

    ” I can ask you a million what ifs.”

    Bring them on, though try to keep them on subject

    ” What if you were forced to let die either your boss or your neighbor, who would you let die?”

    Dont see how that is relevant. This feeds back to the discussion on limited resources which as indicated there are hard to resolve. On theoretical level, as to your question though, assuming all things were equal (the odds of saving them, there expected recovery, who is closer, who got sick first, Whose a bigger talmid chacham, who i like better etc etc etc) Id probably flip a coin.

    Why do you ask?

    #1095751

    Joseph
    Participant

    Okay, you’re back to your old card tricks of repeating points that were answered. You do this with everyone.

    A ban on abortion will have exceptions. The vast majority of pro-lifers support exceptions. It is pointless addressing scenarios of a never-happening proposal of outlawing abortion when, for example, the mother’s life is at risk. Despite Walker. Even if Walker is President.

    Yes, people have been starving and have had to steal food to survive. Whether in remote areas or non-remote areas. And that was just an example. I could offer any of another two dozen examples.

    Your comments are nonsensical. I’m not going to sit here and rebut every time you repeat the same nonsense and non sequitur over and over by shifting a few words.

    #1095752

    newbee
    Member

    “Your comments are nonsensical. I’m not going to sit here and rebut every time you repeat the same nonsense and non sequitur over and over by shifting a few words.” – Joseph

    If you want limited-frustration, purely rational, non-repetitive, constructive dialog- online forums with anonymous strangers are not your best option. The main reason being there is not enough mods or time to filter out repetitive and irrational posts.

    That would take dozens of full time, skilled employees.

    #1095753

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    “Okay, you’re back to your old card tricks of repeating points that were answered.”

    Nope I never do that. I ask simple direct preferably yes/no questions. My calling out your avoidance and dodging the question is not “repeating point”

    Here is the question you are too afraid and/or dishonest to answer for all to see. I grant you that the way I first posed it was “preposterous and unrealistic” So i rephrased it in a very realistic way.

    Here it is again:

    “Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions”

    (Note: This does not mean you would vote for candidate A over B you may agree with B on a million and one other positiions)

    Asking which candidtae’s view (whether or not it would be implemented) is more compatible with your own is not a preposterous question.

    “Your comments are nonsensical. I’m not going to sit here and rebut every time you repeat the same nonsense and non sequitur over and over by shifting a few words. “

    Profound! care to elaborate? I dont think you know what non-sequitor means.

    #1095754

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions (and yes there are candidates who take these view, whether they “take a lot of heat” is irrelevant)?

    If you are saying that the halachicly sanctioned cases do not exist, or that they can be worked into a viable constitutionally sound legal system. On either of those points you are simply wrong and there is no room for differing iopinions

    You are making an argument here using a false dilemma fallacy. Your “valid” positions are:

    1. Ban all abortions without exception (you declare this position “valid” in your mind, but disagree with it)

    2. Allow all abortions

    Joseph presents a 3rd option:

    3. Ban abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, including psychological factors

    You reject this 3rd option as invalid because its exceptions would perhaps not be consistent with halachic exceptions. However, options 1 and 2 are also not consistent with halacha, so what makes option 3 worse than 1 in your mind? To play your game, if you were forced to choose between options 1 and 3, which would you choose?

    Also, given U.S. viewpoints, the Catholic bogeymen and Scott Walker are red herrings. Option 1 could never pass Congress, and supporters of option 1 would line up behind option 3, since it’s better than option 2 to them.

    #1095755

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    not quite

    Here is Joseph’s 3rd option as you present it

    “3. Ban abortions with exceptions for the life of the mother, including psychological factors”

    the problem is who decides what constitutes danger to life of the mother? Especially regarding “psychological factors”?

    in this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-republicans-pro-life#post-579129

    I offer some choices to the question. Feel free to pick. (Joseph claims he answered but I cnat find where)

    “so what makes option 3 worse than 1 in your mind?”

    Because my number one priority is frum people. So a frum personj by definition will not get an abortion stam azoy. As for the general public that is veryvery low on my prioritiy list. Especialy when banning them would not even decrease them!

    “To play your game, if you were forced to choose between options 1 and 3, which would you choose?”

    I’m not sure who decides in your scenaario 3. If itis an orthodx Rabbi. Tehn I choose option 3. That is exactly my position! If it is a Legislature. I still choose option 3. That is better than banning all abortions!

    “supporters of option 1 would line up behind option 3, since it’s better than option 2 to them. “

    Agreed. but option 2 is better than option 3 to us.

    #1095756

    simcha613
    Participant

    There are other situations where some poskim would allow abortions like in the case of certain genetic disorders of the fetus. So, unless there’s an option only permitting halachically valid abortions, then I’d rather take the more permissive stance which would allow Jews to have abortions when they are halachically acceptable, even if this means more Non-Jews violationg issurim.

    Joseph’s analogy to stealing doesn’t fit, because the few Jews that would benefit from halachically permissible stealing would be far less than the Jews who would suffer from being victims of stealing should it be allowed. By abortion, Jews don’t directly suffer if non-Jews violate the issur of having an abortion. But we benefit when there is a legal way to get a halachically permissible abortion.

    #1095757

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    Avram

    the problem is who decides what constitutes danger to life of the mother? Especially regarding “psychological factors”?

    in this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/why-are-republicans-pro-life#post-579129

    I offer some choices to the question. Feel free to pick. (Joseph claims he answered but I cnat find where)

    Two options you do not suggest would seem to be the most reasonable for such legislation: the individual physician or an appointed team of medical experts who can assess each case individually. Consulting a knowledgeable rav is something Jews should do regardless of civil legislation, and I am sure that if needed, the rav would himself consult with medical experts.

    I am aware that in reality, such a setup would be extremely complex, potentially inconsistent, and fraught with conflicts of interest and values. For those reasons, I think it is unlikely for such legislation to be enacted into law. I therefore tend to agree that given the current culture, outright bans are not the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions in the US at this point. However, this does not mean I support the status quo!

    Because my number one priority is frum people.

    What about non-frum Jews?

    So a frum personj by definition will not get an abortion stam azoy.

    I wish this were true. But previous discussions in this forum have made me fear otherwise.

    As for the general public that is veryvery low on my prioritiy list.

    I’m surprised that the wrath of charliehall has not yet fallen on your head for this comment 🙂

    #1095758

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    “Two options you do not suggest would seem to be the most reasonable for such legislation: “

    Ok so option 10.

    “the individual physician or an appointed team of medical experts who can assess each case individually.”

    Ah but medicine and halacha define danger to life veeeery diferently. This comes up in many situations eg fasting (There is raely a medical indication for a person to avoid fasting for a day with the exception of the elderly) Rabbonim allow eating much more commonly especialy among pregant women, recent surgery etc. Delaying a bris milah is another example physiologic jaundice is not a medical reason to delay a bris. So unless your physician or medical experts would defer to a Competent Rabbi (which is my option 1 above) This isnt a viable option.

    “Consulting a knowledgeable rav is something Jews should do regardless of civil legislation,”

    I’m not sure what you mean by regardless of legislation, if abortions where illegal unless the life of amother was at risk, and your physician or medical expert felt there was no risk, and a competent Rav felt the life was at risk (either medicaly or psychologicly). What good would going to the Rav be?

    “I am aware that in reality, such a setup would be extremely complex, potentially inconsistent, and fraught with conflicts of interest and values. For those reasons, I think it is unlikely for such legislation to be enacted into law. I therefore tend to agree that given the current culture, outright bans are not the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions in the US at this point.”

    We whole heartedly agree! PErhaps in Israel, and certainly when Moshiach comes we can enact a Rabbinic advisory board of some sort.

    “However, this does not mean I support the status quo!”

    What do you support?

    “What about non-frum Jews?”

    They are number 2

    “I wish this were true. But previous discussions in this forum have made me fear otherwise.”

    You are right about that. But they fall into my number 2 category.

    #1095759

    charliehall
    Participant

    If you could write a law that codifies the actual halachah regarding abortion I would support it. It would have to include an absolute permission for a woman to have an abortion if her physical or mental health were in danger (Judaism was far ahead of the rest of the world in realizing that there is no difference), permission for any reason in the first 40 days of pregnancy, and permission when the fetus has a serious defect that is not compatible with life such as Tay-Sachs disease, some trisomy conditions, and developmental problems such as the fetus’s brain developing outside the skull (my wife actually had a patient with such a fetus and had to refer her to an abortion provider).

    I am unaware of any Christian group that supports such a position.

    #1095760

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    Ah but medicine and halacha define danger to life veeeery diferently.

    Oh? Is there a consistent definition?

    This comes up in many situations eg fasting (There is raely a medical indication for a person to avoid fasting for a day with the exception of the elderly) Rabbonim allow eating much more commonly especialy among pregant women, recent surgery etc.

    1. The allowances for eating on fast days other than Yom Kippur are much more lenient than danger to life. And even when talking about Yom Kippur, there’s a big difference between permitting fasting in measures and eating normally.

    2. I once heard a non-Jewish OB state that she was aghast that a pregnant woman would ever fast, because it would throw the baby and possibly the mother into ketosis. So I respectfully disagree with what seems to be your assertion that the medical definition of danger is stricter than Judaism’s, or that there is any real consistent definition at all. Additionally, due to the potential for liability or malpractice lawsuits, if an abortion ban with danger exceptions were passed, I’d imagine that most medical practitioners/panels would set the danger bar pretty low.

    if abortions where illegal unless the life of amother was at risk, and your physician or medical expert felt there was no risk, and a competent Rav felt the life was at risk (either medicaly or psychologicly). What good would going to the Rav be?

    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, especially when our lawsuit happy society would engender a tendency to err on the side of caution.

    What do you support?

    Here’s the thing: most abortions in the US are done for economic reasons or due to fear of disruption to life. Crisis pregnancy centers know this, so a big part of what they do is to steer pregnant women towards Federal programs such as Medicaid and WIC, offer counseling, and assistance with adoption if desired.

    This will blow gaskets among the Republicans here, but to really reduce the number of abortions, we need more programs geared towards helping pregnant women and new mothers. For starters, insurance should cover prenatal care, birth, postpartum care, and a year of infant care 100%. To lower costs, low-risk pregnancies should be handled by midwives outside of a hospital setting. Paid family leave for the birth of a child should be mandated. University health centers should provide prenatal care. And there should be benefits for businesses that provide family friendly benefits such as flexible schedules, sick leave, teleworking, etc. Cultural changes are also needed, though this cannot be mandated. Babies are blessings, not burdens, and this message should be reinforced.

    If my taxes go up so that abortions become exceedingly rare, then I’m happy to pay.

    #1095761

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    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!

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.