The Stupak Amendment
Rep. Stupak’s last-minute anti-abortion amendment to the House health bill - - supported by the direct lobbying of several Roman Catholic bishops - - could have the effect of removing abortion from the American health care system. It goes way beyond current law that ensures a woman's right to an abortion and pits the theological views of a Christian supremacist minority against the religious beliefs and practices of Americans with many different beliefs.
Jewish tradition values life. The spiritual importance of parenting well is central to the life of pious Jews. Nevertheless, abortion is neither forbidden nor is it regarded as murder in Judaism. We believe a fetus does not achieve the status of “a human person” until it leaves the womb and it takes a breath.
Exodus 21:22-23 discusses a situation in which two men are fighting. During the fight, one of the men accidentally hits a pregnant woman. The Torah says that if the woman is killed, “a nefesh shall be given for a nefesh (a life shall be given for a life).” The man who struck her is considered a murderer. He is punished accordingly. If, however, the woman miscarries but does not die, the man must pay monetary damages. He is not accused of murder because a fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being.
The Mishnah, the foundational work of Rabbinic law, teaches: “If a woman suffers difficult labor in childbirth, the fetus must be cut up in her womb and brought out piece by piece, for her life takes precedence over its life. If [however] its greater part has [already] come out, it must not be touched, for the [claims of one] life can not supersede [that of another] life.” (Oholoth 7:6)
On the basis of this, Judaic law has consistently argued that the health of the mother must take precedence over the fetus. This position was expounded by our most famous rabbis, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides"), known affectionately as Rambam, and Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, called Rashi.
As evidence that the fetus is not a full person ("nefesh"), it cannot receive gifts, and if aborted or miscarried, it cannot receive a Jewish name or have a Jewish funeral. Until it is born and breathing, it is a "rodef."
Rabbinic discussions of when the soul enters the fetus are not part of the conversations about abortion in Judaism. The learned rabbis were interested in ensoulment, the moment that the soul and the body were joined, but there was no agreement about the issue. It is consigned as a mystery haShem only knows.
In Judaism, a soul is immortal whether it is joined to a body or not. Ensoulment isn't confused by anything like the Christian notion of “Original Sin.” Historically, Christianity has considered ensoulment as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. But Christians have taught that ensoulment occurs from the instant of fertilization of the ovum to ninety days after conception, or even later.
Most rabbis readily agree that trivial or material reasons for abortion should be vigorously condemned, but that abortion performed for the life and health of the mother and her family is both permissible and in some cases, required. Anything that restricts a woman from acting according to her family needs and her Jewish halacha is by definition antisemitic.
If the House health care bill is allowed to become law with the anti-abortion amendment intact, religious Americans of many faiths will be subjected to restrictions that contravene their own faith’s most studied, personal and sacred views about the major questions of life, family and freedom of religious conscience -- the freedoms enshrined by our nation’s founders.
|
Welcome!
Change Location:
Old Town Auburn’s problem is as old as the wheel, not enough parking. However, a parking …
With the arrival of spring, the end of ski season is just weeks away.
…
As police await autopsy results, one neighbor said a body found in an …
|
Many young unmarried girls end up pregnant. The ability to get abortions has become easy and without parent knowledge. Not sure that is the right thing to do. Some look at the issue as a way to for population control as many of those young girls can't afford the baby in the first place... To keep the baby adds pressure on social programs. There is a cost to not having abortions available and a cost to having them available. Not sure how you solve this issue.
While I certainly appreciate the work you must have put into this article, I appreciate even more your statement "trivial or material reasons for abortion should be vigorously condemned".
Your readers should not be under the false impression that abortion on demand vis-a-vis the Planned Parenthood and N.O.W. ideal is at all supported in any Torah true Jewish teaching.
As to the amendment, I'm still not sure why I have to have the Governments insurance at all. If I am forced to have their insurance, I hope the "pro-choice-er's" will defend my choice to keep my own insurance. If as I suspect I am allowed to keep my own insurance, then G-d forbid should we need an abortion we will still be able to do so.
What my friends on the left seem to overlook (to their detriment) is that most Conservatives, NeoCons or Republicans only oppose abortion on demand. It is because of the vociferous mad screeching of the pro-abortion crowd demanding that abortion be a standard and acceptable first option that we fear a society run a muck and support Right to Life as a movement.
I hope I'm expressing myself clearly and welcome your comments.
Max P
Brooklyn, NY
Isn't it a woman's right to chose? The Supreme Court made that clear in Roe vs. Wade.
What about the Ninth Amendment?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
We need to stop the attack on our individual rights. Meddling in government affairs is not allowed. Keep religion out of the government. The Stupac amendment is unconstitutional. It will be removed.
Why should any citizen be forced to pay for an individual's behavior? Feminists want it both ways. Abortion........,available, and paid by others....but if a girl chooses to carry the child, the sperm donor is liable to pay...at the barrel of a gun......for its support. He cannot demand she abort it, even though she has the right. on the other hand, she can abort it if he is willing to pay.
The is a classic example of why the term 'FeminiNazi' exists !!
It's an issue between a woman and her doctor.
It's none of our collective business.
I place it under our right to privacy as
I believe the Supreme Court leaned into with Roe v. Wade.
I favor a woman's right to choose. Maybe the father of the baby should also have some say. I am opposed to paying for abortions and would rather help fund adoption agencies to find homes for unwanted babies.
I believe that we should teach our children abstinence with more fervor and then we wouldn't have dilema's like this.
I can honestly say I see good and valid points on both sides of the issue. While I don't believe in abortion myself, I do believe that a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. If she chosses to have sex out of wedlock she puts herself into a "moral dilema" but it is her choice. If her male partner chooses to put himself in the "moral dilema" of having sex out of wedlock, he should be held accountable for his actions and needs to pay. But should the rest of us pay for their indiscretions...Hmmm?
If she has an abortion she won't ever give the child a bad life by being a crummy parent, she won't ever draw public assistance, etc.. If she doesn't have an abortion the kid could grow up unloved, mistreated, be a criminal, or worse. But he/she may be president.
I can't take a hard line on this topic, butter my butt ,cover me in syrup, and call me a "Waffle" on this one.
Consider the whole of the discussion that haShem puts forth in Torah. Is the servants life nefesh? Yes! Yet if the servant does not die that day, the master that hit him is not punished. Why? For at the pass of the day the life of the servant is under the hand of haShem, who gives or take the life thereof, in judgement of the servant and his master, for the servant is of value to the master.
Yet, if men are fighting and hit a woman with child, and the child die, the husband of the woman and the judges shall determine punishment. The matter is a judgement of haShem, who gives or takes the life of the child, for the men fighting have no intent for the death of the child otherwise evil would have followed and it would be life for life.
Was Yishma`e'l born or had taken breathe when Hagar was told his name? Yet haShem had declared that her son would be born. Yet more of Yitzkaq. Would you have given Benyamin, to save Rachel? It is a stretch too far to relate miscarriage to abortion, for abortion has intent of the harm of the child. Of such cases where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, it would be better to do no harm and seek the health of both mother and child, and leave the judgement to haShem, who is the sovereign of life and death.
It is a stretch too far to say that this anti-abortion amendment is antisemitic. There is a better case that the whole rest of the bill is contrary to Torah in establishing unjust requirements of persons and property.
MikeGruber and Born_Here,
I agree 100% with both of you, well said.
MikeGruber and Born_Here,
I agree 100% with both of you, well said.
If there is any government money anywhere in the organization or insurance business even if it is not even remotely related to a woman's abortion then that organization or insurance would not be able to provide abortions. This would be the new law.
It is clearly a ploy to make the left not vote for a public option.
on other matters:
It does seem unfair and tragic if a father wants a baby and the mother does not however the mother does risk her life, possibly her social standing and possibly her means of making a living if she carries the child.
I would imagine that many women would chose to carry an unplanned pregnancy if they thought that they would be supported until they could support themselves. However our society is not generally willing to do this.
MaxPSRA - You read the Auburn Journal in Brooklyn? Thanks for you comments. It was not my intent to lead readers into thinking that the Torah or Mishna support abortion as a method of birth control. Nothing could be further from the truth.
____
ChuxxR - With the Stupak amendment the issue is not law but wealth. If you can afford a private abortion, no problem. But if you are gang-raped by your fellow soldiers in Iraq, you're on your own. Odd that it's OK when we spend tax dollars to kill foreigners, but not OK to spend them to save the life of a woman in trouble.
________
Sheepherder - Good argument but flawed. It's premised on your opinion that abortion has intent of the harm of the child. The intent of this most serious of decisions leans to the well being of the woman. The principal is to save a nefesh by ridding her of a harmful rodef . The Talmud presents a case where doctors say that if the mother continues with the pregnancy she will die. In such a case, we kill the fetus in order to save the mother. Why? Because when the partial life of the fetus is weighed against the full life of the mother, we give precedence to saving the full life. 'If a pregnant woman's labor becomes life-threatening it is permitted to dismember the fetus in her abdomen, either by a medication or by hand, for it is like [an assailant] pursuing her [in order] to kill her.' (Mishneh Torah; Rav Moshe Maimonides)
Shalom.
"This is illustrated by a case in the Talmud whereby a building collapsed on Shabbat. The rescue crew does not know if anyone is trapped under the rubble or not. And even if someone is trapped, they may already be dead. Despite these doubts, we push aside the restrictions of Shabbat in order to dig out the rubble - on the chance that it may result in the prolonging of human life. Why? Because every part of human life - even a doubtful, partial human life - has infinite value.
This applies to a fetus as well.
However, there can be certain factors which may create an exception. For example, when partial life threatens a full life. The Talmud discusses a case where doctors say that if the mother continues with the pregnancy, she will die. In such a case, we kill the fetus in order to save the mother. Why? Because when the partial life of the fetus is weighed against the full life of the mother, we give precedence to saving the full life."
- Rabbi Shraga Simmons
Now let's weigh this against the Catholic teaching on abortion:
"Deliberately We have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,' 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions - granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies."
- Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951.
What is the difference between this and the Jewish rule?
Both groups are in opposition to abortion - yet both have exceptions to this rule under certain specific situations.
Christians need to wake up and realize it doesn't say anything in the Bible about "Life begins at conception", that's just something extra they came up with after...and organized religion is bad enough as it is, why add this on? Christianity is being shown for its true colors in the gay marriage debate and young people are turning away in droves. Goodbye and Good luck
Skeptic, who posts anonymously, presents himself (or herself) as an authority on Jewish law.
But skeptic mistranslates the few Hebrew words s/he uses. Nefesh means 'soul', not 'life' or 'human being.'
And Rodef means 'pursuer.' It is only used to refer to an in utero baby that threatens a mother's life.
According to Jewish law, there are two possibilities:
• The baby is not a rodef, and may not be aborted
• The baby is a rodef and MUST be aborted.
In neither case is it a matter of choice.
And nothing in Jewish law REQUIRES the government to pay for abortions. Jews don't view Jewish law as binding on non-Jews, except for the Seven Precepts of Noah, none of which applies in this case.
MaxPSRA:
This is, of course, my personal experience and if I were in another environment my exposure might be different; but most pro-choice individuals I have met or had discussions with do not view abortion as a first-option. Also, I have yet to meet with a pro-choice individual who was actually promoting abortion itself; they were, however, promoting that the option of abortion be available should someone decide that be their personal choice / solution. I have also known a number of people who believe they would never have an abortion, even given the choice; yet feel it is not in their place to make that choice for another.
=======
ChuxxR:
One would think that abortion would be a woman’s choice, since it is her body and she takes on the physical risks as well as the potential future financial, physical, social and psychological risks should she choose to bear the child. One would think since Roe vs., Wade that it would no longer be an issue. Silly me for thinking that way, eh? ;)
gellero:
Why should I be forced to pay for someone else’s life choices that have medical consequences?
*People who choose to smoke and their increased risk for cancer;
*People who drink and drive and the potential accident injuries to themselves and innocent standers by;
*The child born of a drug using mother…and the potentially life long health problems that may accompany that child;
*People who are exposed to substances by their employer or government only to learn in later years that there are adverse health issues related to said substance;
*People who are reckless in their actions, be it driving or playing that impact themselves or those near by.
I could list more if you like. The fact of the matter is we are all affected by those around us. We all pay for the choices of others; Now and in the future. That is the way the system currently works. We are already paying for abortions, cancer treatments, accidental injuries, lawsuits, services for those who cannot survive otherwise.
As to the Man…It a perfect world, he should help pay. It is a sad thing that a man can sow his seed, and not have much of a choice in its growth…yet it is the woman who bears the initial brunt of the physical risk. The risk to the man comes after the birth of the child…if he chooses to face that responsibility. Sadly, there are those that run off.
gellaro
continued:
Saying a woman can only abort if the man is willing to pay doesn’t make sense. It isn’t his choice to abort. It is hers. They may differ on their opinions. What if she wants to abort but cannot financially and he won’t pay for it? You think it is cheaper to put the woman and child on welfare for a number of years? What of the child that comes from that situation? Many “unwanted” children are not adopted out as one might idyllically hope. What would be your solution to that?
MikeGruber:
Thank you.
================
JonGreen:
It would be nice if more options were available. But I would not support offering another option just to take one off the table. :)
================
Progressive4Values:
I too think more women would make other choices if there were more supportive alternatives.
Sorry Skeptic....I guess this is still an issue closer to my heart than I'd like to admit! Enjoy your day.
Rabbi PloniAlmoni (who never posts anonymously):
I present myself as no such thing. You do. I thank you for the undeserved compliment.
The principal that applies in abortion cases is "pikuach nefesh," or "the saving of human life". Halakha so stresses the sanctity of all human life that pikuach nefesh, even when performed on Shabbat, does not incur any aveira.
The mitzva of pikuach nefesh is derived from Vayikra (Leviticus), in which Adonai teaches us: “Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood (nefesh) of thy neighbor: I am HaShem." In this case the term nefesh means "blood" or "life".
You are correct; Maasey haTorah and the 613 Mitzvot do not apply to goyim. It is only a Jewish belief that the Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach apply to goyim. Naturally, the Stupak amendment would also effect people who have other beliefs or no beliefs at all. This fact also makes it discriminatory.
Shalom.
ChristinaO -
Why are you apologizing? We couldn't agree more.
BTW, when you hear someone claim that "life begins at the moment of conception," what they really mean is that ensoulment (the entry of the 'divine spark' to use Emerson's phrase) occurs at conception, as some religions believe. The point is this: "life begins at conception" is a religious phrase, not a medical or scientific one. The whole idea of using the more ambiguous phrase "conception" is to hide that it is all about Christian fundamentalist sectarian dogma.
The one common thread through most of these comments is "self".
Christina - "Maternal instincts" are not present in all women and then, in degrees among those who have them. Self-sacrifice to another life is not a popular idea these days.
Observer...you have a point.
Mike Gruber, well said. What I think personally has no validity under the law. While I may not condone it I will not condem it. And we all pay taxes, some of which go to fund things we don't like. We cannot pick and choose what we want our tax dollars to go to, the Country is not run like United Crusade.