(This is my very first diary, and I’m probably about to put my foot in it big time…but here goes.)
Full Disclosure: I am not a conservative. I am center-left in my leanings. Specifically, I am one of those strange creatures known as the Religious Left, that odd pack of betwixt and betweeners who find themselves agreeing with both political sides partially (and neither side fully) on most issues. One of the most glaring of those issues, of course, is abortion–and it is my views on that issue that I hope to explain in this diary.
Like many of you, my views on abortion are tied inseparably to my faith. Unlike many of you, my faith is that of an observant Conservative Jew. One of the things that bothered me as a lurker reading this site was how many RedStaters framed the abortion debate as a black and white, cut and dried, all or nothing, religion vs. secularist debate: either you’re 100% pro-life or 100% pro-choice, with the religiously devout presumed to fall automatically into the former category.
I can understand why, in a nation that is so overwhelmingly Christian, it is easy to overlook religious minorities in making sweeping generalizations about religion in America…I’m guilty of doing it at times myself. But the fact is, Judaism doesn’t fit that abortion dichotomy, and neither do I. I don’t expect that my views will change anyone’s mind on the issue, but consider it food for thought.
Unlike Christianity which believes that the fetus is a person from the point of conception, Judaism believes that ensoulment (and thus personhood) occurs at birth. This belief is based on Genesis 2:7, which states that “the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (the Hebrew word used is ‘nefesh’).” Although Adam was fully formed, physically, beforehand, the Bible specifies that he did not become a ‘nefesh’ until his first breath. ‘Nefesh,” in Hebrew, has two meanings:
1. A soul
2. A person (in the legal sense, as opposed to the more general sense of “human”)
Thus, from this passage, the Sages deduced that all humans likewise become ‘nafshim’ only upon drawing breath for the first time, i.e., at birth. Although a late-term fetus is fully formed and could probably survive outside the womb if removed, it, like the fully formed but nonliving Adam, is not considered a person under Jewish law. Thus, abortion (except for partial-birth abortion) is not considered murder in Judaism.
This view of the fetus’s status is also reflected in Exodus 21:22-23, which state:
21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 21:23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life…
In other words, if a man causes a miscarriage (kills a fetus), he is only to be punished by a monetary fine. If he kills a woman, however, even accidentally, his own life is forfeit. Clearly, this does not indicate that a fetus and its mother are given equal standing under God’s law–but at the same time, the fetus is clearly not considered worthless, as a man who kills a fetus, even by accident, is liable for punishment.
So what, exactly, is the status of a fetus in Jewish law? It depends on how far along in development it is. For the first forty days of gestation, it is considered “mere water,” and thus as having little to no status or value. (Babylonian Talmud, Yebamot 69b) After that point, the embryo is considered a “part of the mother” and “as one of her limbs” until its birth. (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 23b) Once the head of the fetus (or its “greater part” in the case of a feet-first birth) has emerged from the mother’s body, however, it is a ‘nefesh’ with full legal standing as a person. (Mishna, Oholot 7) Therefore, a first trimester abortion is not considered a sin or a crime (although it is frowned upon in light of the divine command in Genesis 9:1 to “be fruitful and multiply”), a second trimester abortion is considered akin to self-mutilation or self-harming (which is definitely sinful, but not a major offense like murder), and only a third trimester “D&C” (“partial birth abortion,” the only viable way to perform a third trimester abortion) is considered infanticide.
First and second trimester abortions are frowned on by Judaism, but they are not banned. In fact, in some cases they are actually required by Jewish law! In the Talmud, it is written that “if a woman has difficulty in pregnancy, the embryo within her must be dismembered limb from limb if necessary, for her life takes precedence over its life.” (Mishna, Oholot 7) Modern rabbinic authorities disagree as to what degree of “difficulty” in a pregnancy allows or requires an abortion, although all rabbis agree that abortion is required when the mother’s life is in danger (unless it is the third trimester and a partial birth abortion would be required, because one cannot take one life to save another if both parties are threatening each other’s lives, as is the case when a baby’s birth puts both the baby and the mother in danger). There is also widespread, though not universal, agreement that a fetus with a terminal condition, or one which would cause the mother a long-term debilitating condition if allowed to develop, can be aborted without incurring any sin. Beyond that, rabbinic opinion is mixed, and each individual synagogue is subject to its own head rabbi’s opinion on the matter.
Now, you may be wondering why, if abortion-on-demand is frowned upon by Judaism, most Jews are so staunchly pro-choice. That also is a matter of faith: decisions about abortion are considered to be the prerogative of the woman (or the couple), her doctor, and her rabbi only, and none of a judge’s business. Jews are thus mostly opposed to any anti-abortion law that would require women to get a legal official’s permission to have an abortion, even anti-abortion laws that make exceptions for the life and health of the mother (since the standard of “risk to life or health” included in those laws is not the same as the Jewish standard, and could result in judges overruling the right of Jewish women to follow the dictates of their faith).
As for me, I am very much in line with Jewish law on this. I support bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, but I will fight to uphold Roe v. Wade with everything I’ve got. Nonetheless, I would counsel (and have counseled) any woman with an unplanned preganancy to have the baby and then either keep it or put it up for adoption…and I would support her in whatever way necessary to enable her to do so. (And as a side note, my fiance and I plan to adopt children in addition to whatever children we conceive ourselves, to make sure that those children whose mothers did carry them to term are not simply abandoned by the system after birth.)
Like I said, I doubt my opinions will change anyone’s mind, nor was changing minds the intent. I just wanted to show you that pro-choice positions are not necessarily atheistic ones, and that it is indeed possible for a leftie to cherish, defend, and live her faith as strongly as the Religious Right do.
I hope this diary was at least interesting, and I welcome debate (theological or otherwise), praise, criticism, questions, or whatever else you care to throw at me. 
Thanks for letting me be a part of your community!
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
A couple points...
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 6:47AM EST (link)Unlike Christianity which believes that the fetus is a person from the point of conception, Judaism believes that ensoulment (and thus personhood) occurs at birth.
Christianity doesn’t believe anything of the sort. It IS a article of faith among Catholics (any ‘catholic’ who disagrees should just quit pretending to be a Catholic) and anti-abortion fanatics will claim to speak for the almighty, but scripture doesn’t speak on the subject (except for the passage in Exodus 21, of course).
As for me, I am very much in line with Jewish law on this. I support bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, but I will fight to uphold Roe v. Wade with everything I’ve got.
Given that Roe was decided not based on a valid reading of the law, but political activism in opposition to a correct reading of the law (if you disagree, just take this as a theoretical assumption), how do you believe Judaism speaks to government coercing states into accepting this abortion of a decision against the wishes of it’s citizenry? Especially since overturning Roe would neither force anyone to obtain an abortion or preclude them from doing so, it would just allow the people of the individual states decide policy.
Oh, and welcome. Nice non-controversial choice for an initial diary.
Good points.
gallifreya (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 11:37PM EST (link)Christianity doesn’t believe anything of the sort. It IS a article of faith among Catholics (any ‘catholic’ who disagrees should just quit pretending to be a Catholic) and anti-abortion fanatics will claim to speak for the almighty, but scripture doesn’t speak on the subject (except for the passage in Exodus 21, of course).
You are correct that the Bible doesn’t speak on the subject and that only Catholicism has encoded the “life begins at conception” belief as religious law (although, since Protestantism has no codified religious law, that is hardly surprising). However, most of the Christian groups I’ve been exposed to do preach “life begins at conception” as an article of faith. And to say that because it is not overtly discussed in the Bible, it is not a tenet of Christianity is disingenuous, in my opinion. Christianity, like all other religions, has both tenets that are taken directly from scripture and tenets that are taken from certain wise and pious leaders’ interpretation of scripture, both of which are tenets of faith and considered to be “biblical.”
Given that Roe was decided not based on a valid reading of the law, but political activism in opposition to a correct reading of the law (if you disagree, just take this as a theoretical assumption), how do you believe Judaism speaks to government coercing states into accepting this abortion of a decision against the wishes of it’s citizenry? Especially since overturning Roe would neither force anyone to obtain an abortion or preclude them from doing so, it would just allow the people of the individual states decide policy.
This question has several prongs, and I’ll try to address them all. First, regarding the whole “the people should decide” argument, Judaism holds that moral right and wrong are (for the most part) absolute, and are not influenced by majority opinion. In this, we hold with Edmund Burke’s views as laid out in his speech to the electors of Bristol, that government officials should not cede their God-given judgment to the will of the people but should do what they consider right regardless of the people’s opinions. (And yes, I know that he was talking about legislators rather than SCOTUS judges, but the same principle applies.) As the biblical story of Saul shows, it is one thing to serve the public and quite another to just let the public have their way no matter how ill-advised their whims are.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that overturning Roe would not “preclude abortions” because it would merely turn the matter over to the states. Technically, you are correct, but given that many states would then outlaw abortion, it is a semantic distinction without a difference.
Third, Jews have a different view of law and legal process than other groups. The Torah is not merely scripture to us, it is our constitution, the source of the law by which we govern our lives, and one of the key jobs of rabbis is to serve as “activist judges” interpreting that law. For instance, the law of Kashrut (keeping kosher) that says that chicken and dairy products cannot be served at the same meal (or even within four hours of each other) was derived by the ancient rabbis from the biblical commandment “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Now, if it had been up to me to decide whether eating chicken with cheese violated that commandment, would I have made the same decision? Probably not, although I can see the arguments both for and against the rabbis’ decision. But what I would have done is irrelevant, because the rabbis’ decision is the official legal precedent and has the full force of law regardless of what I would have decided. Of course, there is an exception to this: if a rabbi issues a decision that contradicts an explicit commandment from the Torah, the rabbi’s ruling is invalid, because Torah law outweighs rabbinic law.
Jews see the SCOTUS as occupying a similar function, and thus Roe v. Wade (unless it can be shown to be in violation of an article of the Constitution) is binding and perfectly valid law, regardless of what you or I think about the reasoning.
Thanks for the welcome. I hope this response wasn’t confusing…
Thanks for the response.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:31AM EST (link)However, most of the Christian groups I’ve been exposed to do preach “life begins at conception” as an article of faith. And to say that because it is not overtly discussed in the Bible, it is not a tenet of Christianity is disingenuous, in my opinion. Christianity, like all other religions, has both tenets that are taken directly from scripture and tenets that are taken from certain wise and pious leaders’ interpretation of scripture, both of which are tenets of faith and considered to be “biblical.”
It’s not scriptural, it’s cultural. Counter-counter-cultural, if you will. Since the counter-culture has been via the media, judiciary and academia been engaging in a war on traditional values, those with said values have tended to push back. Opposition to a bad law has in this case led otherwise reasonable to think there is a theological component to their position where no valid one exists.
This question has several prongs, and I’ll try to address them all. First, regarding the whole “the people should decide” argument, Judaism holds that moral right and wrong are (for the most part) absolute, and are not influenced by majority opinion. In this, we hold with Edmund Burke’s views as laid out in his speech to the electors of Bristol, that government officials should not cede their God-given judgment to the will of the people but should do what they consider right regardless of the people’s opinions. (And yes, I know that he was talking about legislators rather than SCOTUS judges, but the same principle applies.) As the biblical story of Saul shows, it is one thing to serve the public and quite another to just let the public have their way no matter how ill-advised their whims are.
Agreed, but I’m not sure how this is relevant.
Second, I disagree with your assertion that overturning Roe would not “preclude abortions” because it would merely turn the matter over to the states. Technically, you are correct, but given that many states would then outlaw abortion, it is a semantic distinction without a difference.
Wrong. People are free to live in the locations they want. If abortion is such an integral part of their lifestyle, move somewhere it is legal.
Third, Jews have a different view of law and legal process than other groups. The Torah is not merely scripture to us, it is our constitution, the source of the law by which we govern our lives, and one of the key jobs of rabbis is to serve as “activist judges” interpreting that law. For instance, the law of Kashrut (keeping kosher) that says that chicken and dairy products cannot be served at the same meal (or even within four hours of each other) was derived by the ancient rabbis from the biblical commandment “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Now, if it had been up to me to decide whether eating chicken with cheese violated that commandment, would I have made the same decision? Probably not, although I can see the arguments both for and against the rabbis’ decision. But what I would have done is irrelevant, because the rabbis’ decision is the official legal precedent and has the full force of law regardless of what I would have decided. Of course, there is an exception to this: if a rabbi issues a decision that contradicts an explicit commandment from the Torah, the rabbi’s ruling is invalid, because Torah law outweighs rabbinic law.
Jews see the SCOTUS as occupying a similar function, and thus Roe v. Wade (unless it can be shown to be in violation of an article of the Constitution) is binding and perfectly valid law, regardless of what you or I think about the reasoning.
Not exactly what I meant. What you said was…
I will fight to uphold Roe v. Wade with everything I’ve got.
Of course it is legally valid as long as SCOTUS says it is. The question is what would the Torah say about affirming a statute that violates the basic principles of the nation? Unless you are claiming that abortion on demand being forced on the states is an absolute Burkean good aside from Roe.
With all due respect, the Jewish view of the role of SCOTUS is completely irrelevant
tcgeol (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 1:54PM EST (link)as is my view of SCOTUS as a Christian.
What counts is the role of the Supreme Court as shown in the Constitution, as well as the limits placed on the federal government by the 9th and 10th amendments. There is no way that Roe vs. Wade can be justified under those amendments. Abortion is not a power given to the federal government. The issue should go to the states just like every other normal criminal matter. Whether states allow or prohibit abortion is up to them and either way is permissable. The concept of federalism is the keyword here.
Your view of abortion itself as a Jew is interesting and relevant, but the only opinion of the proper role of the court is in the Constitution.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
RE: Exodus 21:22,23
From ME to You (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 12:09PM EST (link)“And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
(Exo 21:22-23 Jewish Publication Society)
Could you perhaps entertain the thought that the “no harm follow ” might pertain to the child having survived the “induced birth”, in which case the husband could exact payment? Also the “if any harm follow” would imply that the death of the child would be the basis for “thou shalt give life for life”??
Just a thought!
You could.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 12:44PM EST (link)If you wished to deliberately interpret it that way on order to match your personal beliefs. It’s done with scripture all of the time.
Yatsa Yalad
From ME to You (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 1:15PM EST (link)ילדיצא
From Exodus 21:21 (NASB): …gives(H3205) birth(H3205) prematurely(H3318)…”
yatsa (H3318); a prim. root; to go or come out:
yalad (H3205); a prim. root; to bear, bring forth, beget
The use of these two Hebrew words would imply that the life referred to includes the child’s and the “if any harm follow” refers to either the child’s or the mother’s life.
Should the premature birth caused by the “striving” not cause harm to the mother or the child (i.e. the baby survives) than only a fine (monetary or otherwise) proposed by the husband and approved by judges could be levied
If “harm” were to occur than the penalty would be life for life or “,,,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
(Exo 21:24-25 JPS)
It implies nothing of the kind.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 7:19PM EST (link)You are merely inferring what you want to read into the text. It’s an age-old hobby, it worked for slave-owners and abolitionists simultaneously..
I guess we can also apply that "age old hobby"
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 3:44PM EST (link)…to the Constitution, right??????
It is, after all, a “living” document!!!! (NOT!)
They do it all the time.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 5:37PM EST (link)And it is just as invalid as rewriting Exodus to fit your ideology. Except of course that SCOTUS only defames the Constitution, not the Word of God.
Whose ideology is correct then? Yours? NT
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 5:45PM EST (link)Always.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 6:05PM EST (link)Of course, my ideology is that there is no theological mandate one way or the other, any more than there is a valid Constitutional one. The Bible doesn’t speak to the issue, it is a matter of personal ethics and opinion. And the Constitution doesn’t either, it should be left to the states.
Theological mandate!
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 6:38PM EST (link)God always mandates the protection of innocent life!
Your refusal to acknowledge that a “fetus” has the right to life by virtue of it not being a “person” by your definition does not make it the “correct” interpretation.
By your reckoning each is accorded the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong or that there is no right or wrong – survival of the fittest!
That is a valid point.
gallifreya (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 10:52PM EST (link)However, in that interpretation, the harmed child would be a born child rather than a fetus–and thus a full person under Jewish law anyway. So in that case, the passage would have nothing to do with the personhood of fetuses either way.
If the "fetus" is dead it isn't "born". NT
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 2:59PM EST (link)your statement on when a fetus is human is not based...
JadedByPolitics (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 12:22PM EST (link)on what Christians think or what you think it is what scientist say it is a viable human being from the moment of conception….no religion in that!
Unified Patriots – How-To:
Activists Taking Action
precisely so - n/t
Beaglescout (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 4:37PM EST (link)n/t
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
Once again...
gallifreya (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 10:22PM EST (link)there is no debate that a fetus has human DNA and the potential to develop into a person. But science cannot and does not address whether a fetus is a person or merely a potential person…that is a moral/ethical/philosophical question, not a scientific one.
A malignant tumor has human DNA. Human DNA alone does not a person make.
Get ready for the Deluge.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 10:56PM EST (link)I hope you have an umbrella. And an Ark.
I figured as much.
gallifreya (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 11:42PM EST (link)Don’t worry about me…I’m fairly waterproof, and a decent swimmer. And if I can’t defend my position against others, it’ll be a good sign to me that I need to rethink my position.
What garbage!
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 1:39AM EST (link)The notion of a “person” has been a cooked up excuse to justify the position in favor of abortion.
Of course DNA doesn’t make a person. That’s because all that can matter is that one meets the biological (observable) criteria of a WHOLE distinct living human ORGANISM. The only difference between the born and unborn is appearance, physical location, and means of nutrition and respiration. None of those are valid criteria for denying equal rights regardless of one’s “moral/ethical/philosophical” beliefs.
I believe that religion and faith should NOT have a say on this matter, which is actually why abortion must be prohibited. I’ve always believed myself that faith seemed to justify allowing abortion more than non-faith. One would have to rely on some supernatural belief to believe a “person” out of existence and justify killing him or her for one’s own emotional benefit.
As Diogenes314 mentions, the Bible does not address the issue. It could not have. You’ll find disagreement within every religion and denomination. It’s never made sense to me that some churches were the ones to capitalize on it, but that is the way it happened.
You might be well-served to look into how and why abortion was criminalized in 50 state legislatures and in most nations around the world in the 1800′s. Note what people like the religion-hating atheist women’s rights leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton had to say about abortion.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Abortion Rites.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:40AM EST (link)There were a multitude of factors, including the new AMA attempting to force non-guild members out of work and an attempt to protect single women recently arrived in the new industrial urban areas from predatory males. Marvin Olasky’s Abortion Rites (online exerpts) is a good book on the subject. And historically, criminalization was usually prosecuted after ‘quickening’, when the fetus could be felt to move in the womb.
Such a subjective determination as to when "quickening" takes place...
akhardys (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:02AM EST (link)Disagreements on this issue really all boil down to the question of when life begins, doesn’t it?
Can anyone expect there to be room for compromise or capitulation on this issue by individuals who believe it starts at conception? You may as well ask them to be pro-murder, manslaughter, or whatever.
For the sake of unity, can pro-choice conservatives accept a non-negotiable requirement of pro-life conservatives that future candidates MUST be pro-life?
“…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Beats me.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:40AM EST (link)I don’t know what ‘pro-choice conservatives’ think. But candidates for what? POTUS? All national candidates? City counselor? Also by ‘pro-life’, do you mean ‘pro-life’ enough? Would you dismiss out of hand any converts to the anti-abortion movement, even if they had a track record of appointing constitutionalist judges?
As far as when quickening occurs, it’s self explanatory. When you feel it move, it’s quickened.
All candidates. I'm talking about
akhardys (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:18PM EST (link)the unity required for conservatives to elect any candidate at any level, POTUS presenting the biggest challenge. Without the ability to unify around a candidate, the conservative movement overall will flounder at the ballot box and make no political progress.
Browsing REDSTATE for the past month, I’ve noticed two camps that must be reconciled moving forward in order for conservatives to win at the ballot box: Pro-choice FISCONS and SOCONS.
My point is that morally, there is no room for compromise on the abortion issue by SOCONS, so unity will have to come at the expense of pro-choice conservatives. Will they go along with SOCONS? Conservatives should answer this question sooner than later.
You bring up the concept of pro-life converts, i.e. Mitt Romney. Pro-life “enough” is an area where pro-choice FISCONS can reasonably demand that SOCONS compromise, and SOCONS should.
“…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Let's all compromise-everyone should just agree with me.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:35PM EST (link)Seriously. Since Roe V.Wade is currently the law of the land the focus should be on what type of judicial philosophy they support. I would prefer a ‘pro-choice’ candidate who would only support originalist jurists over a ‘pro-life’ one who would only support ones who vowed to overturn Roe and who was determined to, instead of turning the issue over to the states, move toward the federal government outlawing it altogether.
And anyone who disagrees with me on this is part of the problem. As usual.
As Feddie would say...
Bill S (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:49PM EST (link)“Stare decisis is fo’ suckas”
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
That was my tagline for about a year
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 1:13PM EST (link)Which should tell you exactly what I think of Roe v Wade. And the supreme court in general (notice the proper capitalization of that bunch of yahoos).
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
Speaking of taglines
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 1:50PM EST (link)My new one is quite awesome.
Well, alot shorter
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 2:48PM EST (link)and technically accurate on 3 out of 4!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..
Had to say it, brother.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
3 out of 4 ain't bad.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 3:04PM EST (link)Okay, maybe there’s another Liberal out there. I just haven’t heard of them.
Me and the ghost of Hayek-an army of two.
in the spirit of Christmas
E Pluribus Unum (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 3:17PM EST (link)I will allow you to think you won this little exchange.
Kill the Terrorists
Protect the Borders
Punch the Hippies h/t IMAO
In the Spirit of SCOTUS
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 5:49PM EST (link)I’m selectively interpreting other posters’ intent.
I gotta admit, it’s kinda fun.
No
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:48PM EST (link)We know when life begins. Once we confirmed it scientifically based on simple observation, the ancient “quickening” criteria was dropped. It was no longer in use anywhere by the late 1800′s.
Abortion is a perversion of the medical profession. The state licenses doctors to save lives, not to destroy them.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Life begins . . . in Politics
Steve W (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:09PM EST (link)While many intelligent points have been made in the posts above – I find that this statement brings much of it to clarity.
My take, however, is that if God has not made a definitive statement on the matter – then who are you or I to offer one that everyone should follow?
Mandating right and wrong has never worked – and will never work. Ethics will always be an individual matter (although education can play an enormous force here). I can’t force you to think or feel differently (and on another topic I would argue that to do so, if I could, would be unethical) – I can only expose you to clear and forceful arguments or clever persuasions, made in the spirit of good will, and HOPE that you will take them – consider them – and then change your mind if you find them helpful. I would expect the same of myself, if your arguments presented additional, helpful information and persuaded me to adapt my views.
In the discussions above, I’d have to prefer the scriptural definition of when a person becomes a person:
than all of the other, admittedly valid, proposals.
In regards to pro-choice/pro-life – I’ve always felt that this is an area, like seat-belt laws – where the government has NO right to tell me what to do.
So, I am more in keeping with the statement above:
(Although I am not Jewish, and would substitute priest, bishop, pastor, reverend, etc. in place of rabbi.)
I would like for us to find more ways to get government OUT of our lives, instead of continuing to find ways to get them more involved – to multiply governmental control.
I say that there should be NO laws whatsoever in regards to abortion.
If we’re truly conservative (I propose that) that should mean that we want to limit government to the issues named in the Constitution – and leave the rest to the states. Not just issues we don’t find as moral hot buttons.
So strangely enough – I agree with most of what precedes and follows this comment
I now return you to the regularly scheduled abortion debate – thanks for your consideration. . . .
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
- Ronald Reagan
Great discussion - a couple of points...
akhardys (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:36PM EST (link)Some people believe God has made a definitive statement on the matter. For them, to allow abortion after whatever stage (conception – trimesters) they believe life begins is tantamount to condoning murder, manslaughter, etc.
I’m ALL for rolling back government involvement in our lives as you are. But I don’t think you are for eliminating laws which protect your life and property. There are conservatives who believe they have a moral obligation to protect the unborn the same as they have an obligation to protect their neighbors and you. For them, because of their belief, there is no room for concession on this issue.
Roe v. Wade shoved acceptance of the practice down the states throat and made it a national issue.
“…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Wrong
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:28PM EST (link)That’s not the valid disagreement. We KNOW based on OBSERVATION when life begins. SCIENCE CONFIRMED THAT OVER A CENTURY AGO! One would have to be delusional to think that could be a matter of faith.
At issue is why we should deny the most basic right of all on the basis of physical location, appearance, or means of respiration and nutrition.
There’s nothing personal or intrusive about it. No faith is involved; it’s not a matter of “sin.” More importantly, no one is seeking to regulate personal behavior for people’s own good and self-protection. It’s necessary for the government to keep people, especially state-licensed doctors whose job is to save lives, from intentionally killing innocent others. It’s among the most minimal functions required!
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
From the Psalms of David!
AceInTX (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 5:16PM EST (link)Psalm 139: 13-16
Psa 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made; [fn] Marvelous are Your works, And [that] my soul knows very well.
Psa 139:15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, [And] skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When [as yet there were] none of them.
Jeremiah 1: 1-9
Jer 1:1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin,
Jer 1:2 to whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.
Jer 1:3 It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month.
Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
Jer 1:6 Then said I: “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I cannot speak, for I [am] a youth.”
Jer 1:7 But the LORD said to me: “Do not say, ‘I [am] a youth,’ For you shall go to all to whom I send you, And whatever I command you, you shall speak.
Jer 1:8 Do not be afraid of their faces, For I [am] with you to deliver you,” says the LORD.
Jer 1:9 Then the LORD put forth His hand and touched my mouth, and the LORD said to me: “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth.
If you are going to quote the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob…you should be careful to quote him correctly.
His word makes it plain that not only is there life at conception…but that you existed BEFORE conception as stated in Jeremiah above…
Then there is this:
Exodus 20:1-20
Exd 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying:
Exd 20:2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exd 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exd 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
Exd 20:5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exd 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Exd 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Exd 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exd 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
Exd 20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
Exd 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exd 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Exd 20:13 “You shall not murder.
Exd 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.
Exd 20:15 “You shall not steal.
Exd 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exd 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Exd 20:18 Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw [it], they trembled and stood afar off.
Exd 20:19 Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”
Exd 20:20 And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.”
Saying GOD doesn’t speak against abortion just isn’t so no matter how much you wish it was…
Sorry…but you’re wrong!
Wrong as well.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 7:32PM EST (link)And claiming passages in Jeremiah and Psalms that speak to the Lord’s sovereignty and omniscience have something to do with abortion doesn’t make it true. And the Exodus passage is totally irrelevant to the subject. Stick to misinterpreting the DoI to justify your ideology. Leave scripture out of it.
Simply wrong IMHO
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:46AM EST (link)Sorry to disagree with you both but the passages I site refer to a sovereign GOD knowing us before and while we are being formed in the womb…they speak to the fact that God knew them…not just their frame and inward parts…
The quote from Exodus includes “You shall not commit murder” so it does apply if a person exists in the womb or before they were even conceived!
Finally, why would I leave scripture out of it when I was replying to the OP and the assertion that the Jewish scriptures do not address abortion…I site the verses I did to refute that assertion.
Disagree.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:51PM EST (link)Exactly. The scripture doesn’t say anything about the fetus, only about God. And I’m sure he knew me not only in the womb, but prior to conception, which would make conception irrelevant, and the origin of the soul unknown and unknowable at this time.
And maybe the thing about not quoting scripture was overblown. As long as you’re not one of those Randall Terry types who claim anyone who disagrees with them on this isn’t a ‘real Christian’.
Sorry to disagree, but...
gallifreya (Diary) Monday, December 22nd at 10:17PM EST (link)the passages you cite actually don’t undermine my view.
Psalm 139 refers to the formation of the “frame” and the “inward parts” in the womb…in other words, the physical body. Nobody is questioning that the fetus has a physical shape, but as I pointed out in my diary, a physical form is not enough to make one a full person.
Jeremiah 1:5 says “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” You seem to ignore the first part–the very part that scuttles your interpretation. If God knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was “formed in the womb” (in other words, before he was conceived), one either must interpret Jer. 1:5 as saying that personhood begins sometime before sperm meets ovum, or as saying that God in His omniscience knows a person’s destiny before they even come into existence. The former is a laughable and indefensible position, so clearly, the latter is the intended meaning.
I’m not sure what the relevance of the Exodus passage you posted is, unless you are trying to say that “lo tirtzach” (“you shall not murder”) is a ban on abortion. The flaw in that is that murder is by definition “the intentional and unjustified killing of a person.” Since fetuses are not persons (as made clear elsewhere in Exodus), the death of a fetus does not fit the definition of murder, and “lo tirtzach” does not apply.
Thanks for responding, though. I’m always game for a Biblical debate.
OK...let me clarify my position some more
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:16PM EST (link)I’m saying exactly what I said:
We do indeed exist as far as GOD is concerned before we are conceived…If GOD is omniscient and omnipresent why would that be a problem. I think the Bible in it’s symbolism and statements of fact makes it plain that our bodies are nothing more than vessels and WE or the persons we are are wholly and completely spirit. Our bodies are formed in the womb…or in the earth, (the mother’s body which ultimately came from the earth through Adam) as the scripture I quoted says, and our spirit indwells those vessels.
Here’s another example that we live and exist inside the mother’s womb. The Hebrew scriptures speak in Genesis 25:21-23 of Jacob and Esau striving with one another in the womb.
Who contended with one another in the womb? Jacob and Esau! The scriptures discuss the two nations that were in her womb. Those nations are the descendants of Jacob, (Israel) and Esau, (The Edomites).
So I ask you to reason with me on this…how can two blobs of insentient tissue strive with one another in the first place and how can GOD consider them to be the fathers of two entire nations, (races), if he didn’t consider them to be live persons who would grow up to father multitudes?
Seriously…I don’t see how you can read Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures and not see this?
to clarify,
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:29PM EST (link)Where I said:
God calls himself “I AM”. When Mosses asked him what he should tell the Israelite people who sent him…GOD said “I AM that I AM, you shall tell them ‘I AM has sent me’”
Not I was, Not I will be…I AM! GOD created the universe and everything in it including time…it seems to me that he exists outside the constraints of time and scripture at least implies as much if not states it outright.
I would argue that such a being that exists outside the constraints of time would not recognize you if you never existed…concurrently, to him, if you ever existed at any point it time…you always existed.
Don’t forget Luke 1:41-44, especially at Christmastime!
akhardys (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:35PM EST (link)The problem is that I don’t really hear anyone disputing the third trimester and partial birth abortion. Elisabeth was six months along according to Luke 1:36. Esau and Jacob could have been in the third trimester when they were “striving”. The bible isn’t clear on this.
Whether or not life begins at exception is a matter of faith. However, as I’ve pointed out in other comments recently, for those who believe it begins at conception, there is morally no room for compromise on the abortion issue and someone else will have to compromise for political unity sake.
“…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
I was sticking to the Old Testament as the OP
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 1:25PM EST (link)was from a Jewish perspective
Sorry...I missed the part on the exodus quote...
AceInTX (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 12:36PM EST (link)Yes I am pointing out the commandment not to murder…I intended to prove with the point that we considered by GOD to be persons in the womb…my more recent example of Jacob and Esau contending with one another better proves the point I am making that GOD considers us in the womb to be separate persons
I followed up with the commandment prohibiting murder as a follow on to the points I made above to finish the arguement that if we are considered to be persons as we are being formed in the womb, even before we are conceived or when we contend with out twins in the womb (as I believe we are by GOD), The the prohibition against murder applies in the case of abortion!
I hope the last couple posts clarifies my argument.
OK, I'm game!
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 3:37PM EST (link)Where in Exodus is a fetus declared “not person”????
BTW which translation are you using????
Whose definition of (רצח ) râtsach are you using???
"Separation of church and state"
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 2:21AM EST (link)Do you not believe in the concept?
Life must be protected on objective biological bases, and it denies equal protection as well as the establishment clause to allow religious views to justify killing some human lives but not others on the basis of appearance, physical location, or means of respiration and nutrition.
With regard to the law for a pluralistic society, it does not matter what the Bible or any other religious text says. The Bible does not tell us how to make laws for such a society. It tells us how to make laws for our own church. That’s part of being in the world and not of it.
Besides, I think the acceptance of Biblical OT law would rank about up there with Islamic law.
I believe it is totally impossible for any text written prior to 1827 to touch on the matter in any relevant way. We deal today with the ability to observe when a new whole human life begins. Children are now placed in foster care or adoption services rather than left to die. Also, the formation and state licensing of the medical profession has put things in a completely different context that could not have possibly have been imagined thousands of years ago.
To that end, abortion never was considered murder. Prior to the 60′s and 70′s, it was generally accepted in this country to be manslaughter.
On a separate note, your opposition to partial birth abortion is inconsistent with your support of Roe for two reasons. First, it is inconsistent with accepting the routine alternatives for second trimester abortion which are nothing short of sadistic torture far worse than partial birth abortion. Second, a “partial birth abortion ban” and most any other regulation would require the acceptance of the Casey ruling that modified Roe and thus overruled it sub silentio. Of course none of them are legitimate readings of the Constitution. Roe and the Casey plurality opinion are nothing but a pack of lies based on lies. It is sickening that no state law enforcement ever defied it.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
"Separation of church and state"
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 10:22AM EST (link)Not in the slightest. Neither did the Founding Fathers.
You're correct on that one Diogenes!
From ME to You (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 3:17PM EST (link)The current interpretation of that phrase and what the founding fathers would have understood it to mean are vastly different!
When Thomas Jefferson penned that phrase he was referring to the establishment of an official “Church of the United States” on par with the “Church of England” whose head is the reigning monarch of England. He in no way felt that the precepts of the “church” should be ignored when writing or enforcing the “law of the land” but that the establishment of an official state sponsored church should be avoided at all costs.
Actually none of the Founders had much of a problem with official State Churches.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 5:57PM EST (link)Emphasis on the word STATE. Which is evidenced by the fact that individual states had them for over a generation after the BoR was enacted. The idiotic ‘Wall of Separation’ doctrine was invented in order to screw with the Mormons and used a generation later to minimize all people of faith.
Separation
Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 11:56PM EST (link)Most people (and judges) today do support the concept whether Constitutionally mandated or not. Few people would want a particular faith to become law. In a society where people hold such radically different faiths, there has to be some separation to avoid running afoul of the establishment clause in all but name and to maximize free exercise rights ithout government interference. Of course people like those at the ACLU have totally distorted the notion.
As to original intent, I’m sure over 90 percent of the population does not distinguish between federal and state government, particularly when it comes to what they deem as important rights.
My main point is that one cannot use religion to believe someone out of existence or “personhood” to justify killing him or her. If so, we may as well start allowing churches to stone disobedient members to death.
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter
Wrong, irrelevant and incohearant.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Wednesday, December 24th at 2:50AM EST (link)Most people (and judges) today do support the concept whether Constitutionally mandated or not.
Wrong. Most people recognize that it is judicial fiat, and most jurists (at least the competent ones) see it as settled only due to stare decisis.
As to original intent, I’m sure over 90 percent of the population does not distinguish between federal and state government, particularly when it comes to what they deem as important rights.
90% of the population are idiots? With the state of public education that’s possible, although probably on the high side. And even if 90% of the population believed that t6he ‘Wall of Separation’ was valid, it would still be judicial nonsense.
My main point is that one cannot use religion to believe someone out of existence or “personhood” to justify killing him or her. If so, we may as well start allowing churches to stone disobedient members to death.
Your ‘main point’ has nothing to do with anything. And freedom of religion doesn’t allow Wahabbis to stone their enemies any more than it allows athiests to icepick their heretics in the back of the head.
"Human" life begins at conception and must be valued at all stages.
Vaughn Harold (Diary) Tuesday, December 23rd at 2:56PM EST (link)It’s amazing the extremes people will go too intellectually to minimize the most precious gift given to the care of society.
Do you believe "abortion should be safe legal and rare"?
David123 (Diary) Wednesday, December 24th at 4:28PM EST (link)You are pretty clearly not enthusiastic about the practice of abortion itself, and it’s also quite clear that you care about children.
You also write, ” I support bans on partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, but I will fight to uphold Roe v. Wade with everything I’ve got. ”
I think that if you want abortion to be safe legal and rare that you would support overturning Roe v Wade, in a non-judicial activist manner – ie, nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from regulating abortion, but nothing in the Constitution requires prohibiting abortion either.
If Roe v Wade was overturned, New York would probably continue to allow 1st & 2nd trimester abortions, but some other states would probably prohibit prohibit abortion and some would allow them only in the first trimester.
In such a situation, abortion is legal but not necessarily convenient. Women who were desparate for abortions would simply travel to New York or other places where it was legal and get them. But women who were torn would probably refrain from having them, since it would be inconvenient and they could easily have second thoughts about the abortion while they were traveling to New York to get it. Women would not have an incentive to get dangerous illegal abortions since they could legally get them in New York.
I am using New York as an example since the New York legislature allowed 1st & 2nd trimester abortions a couple years before Roe – I suspect that some other states would still allow abortions also if Roe were overturned.
In this type of outcome, abortions are legal in America, but discouraged. I think that most people who are Pro-Choice would like this outcome. The only people who wouldn’t would be people who are actually Pro-Abortion – people who think that abortions are actually a good thing. Pro-life people wouldn’t like this as a final outcome, but they would agree that it would be an improvement over the current situation.
I don’t mind abortion being legal early in pregnancy, but I don’t think that there’s anything in the Constitution about it being a Constitutional right – so judges just made up a ruling out of their heads on Roe instead of following what the Constitution says. I also don’t think abortion should be a form of birth control – I think it is wrong for women to get pregnant over and over again and stop each pregnancy with an abortion.
David123
Good luck with that.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Wednesday, December 24th at 4:59PM EST (link)I’m pretty sure that such a noxious idea as letting the people decide the law would cause True Believers on both sides to lose their minds-especially if the majority in their states disagreed with their ideology.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, in the womb...
ArchTriumph (Diary) Monday, January 5th at 10:43AM EST (link)Thanks for the interesting post, gallifreya. I always enjoy thoughtful discussions of theology, religious law and philosophy especially related to practice and politics. Because I do not have a thorough understanding of the Talmud I will not attempt to dispute your articulation of the Jewish position reference these text. Apart from that it is interesting that you make this statement:
Unlike Christianity which believes that the fetus is a person from the point of conception, Judaism believes that ensoulment (and thus personhood) occurs at birth.
For Judaism to be based on Talmud over the Torah is like Christianity being based on the writings of Augstine rather than the words of Christ. In fact, both Christianity and Judaism share their roots in the same teaching and books – therefore the reason that many assume continuity between these monotheistic faiths is because of the consistency within the Book, what followers of Christ call the Old Testament.
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_torah.htm
See, how these verses compliment and expand without contradiction the Exodus and Genesis verses:
“Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:15)
Yet you are He who brought me from the womb; you did make me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon you I was cast from birth; you have been my God from my mother’s womb. (Psalms 22:9-10)
For you did form my inward parts; you did weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in your book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalms 139:13-16)
Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you, `Do not fear, O Jacob My servant; And you Jeshurun whom I have chosen. (Isaiah 44:2)
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)
I would point out that the breadth of life (‘nefesh’) mentioned in Genesis is part of the creation account and will bare some differences between the normative birthing process. Where the soul is created and when infused in the body is for theological speculation. However there is no doubt that God values all life, including the unborn.
All the best, thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Reality’s Sylogism. Unflappable, Unashamed, Unabashed, Unapologetic.