- This topic has 52 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Do you not see any Tzad to be Mechalek between a fetus and a person. There are certainly many who think fetuses are people. There are those who say that Jewish law is barbaric because it allows killing a fertilized egg (every Halachic sources agrees that it isn’t murder). There are those who think that as long as it’s in the mother, it’s still Yerech Imo and can be excised if necessary like any other limb. Just because we think we are right does not make someone with another opinion on it a murderer nor is there action evil. We think it’s murder (maybe). But do you really think that the Shittah that the determining factor between personhood and not is birth has no moral weight whatsoever?
Can I make an off-topic suggestion?
Whenever there are threads like this, can we please get a link back to the original thread/post that this is referring to?
Even if I know which thread it’s referring to now (and I don’t — and nor do I feel like going on a wild goose chase to find it), I’m almost certain that anyone reading this five years from now will not have the faintest clue what this is referring to.
So, if for no other reason than the benefit of our future readers, can we please get a link?
Thanks,
The Wolf (who apologizes for the hijack…)
For context, the moderators closed a different thread (thank you coffee addict for providing the link) but implied that Sam2 and I could continue a tangential discussion that began towards the end of that thread.
I wrote,
How does the way the doctor characterizes the unborn baby change anything [i.e., my contention that abortion due to a potential problem detected by optional screening is wrong]?
Ubiquitin responded:
Um becasue this entire conversation is about the doctor’s intentions
No, I do not believe this entire conversation is about the doctor’s intentions. As I had already stated, I had no question that the doctor’s intentions were noble, intended to be helpful, and came from a good place. I had no quarrel with the doctor! Nor did my respect for the doctor diminish at all. My problem is with the cultural environment in which those actions can be defined as good things.
Sam2,
Do you not see any Tzad to be Mechalek between a fetus and a person.
So if we say that a fetus is not a “person”, does that give us carte blanche to do whatever we want with the fetus? Does any shitta hold that way? I think it is highly incorrect to map halachic concepts of a fetus onto the distinctions that the secular world draws. They are extremely different, and have different intents.
I find the whole secular distinction to be silly to begin with. Pick up any copy of What To Expect When You Are Expecting or Your Pregnancy Week By Week or the literature given out at an OB’s office and see what they call the fetus: your baby! This focus on exclusively calling the fetus a fetus (e.g., not a baby, not a person!) only crops up when discussing abortion. So when you peel away all of the disingenuous layers, the bald truth of the secular position is this: a fetus becomes a baby when the parents decide that they want it.
There are those who think that as long as it’s in the mother, it’s still Yerech Imo and can be excised if necessary like any other limb.
Define necessary in this case. I imagine it is quite different than what the secular culture holds.
Just because we think we are right does not make someone with another opinion on it a murderer nor is there action evil. We think it’s murder (maybe).
So it seems that you are arguing that there is no absolute good or absolute evil. It is all relative and based on cultural norms?
So if, G-d forbid, in 100 years people exclusively call a newborn younger than 1 month a neonate (don’t call it a baby or a person! Science has proven that there is no sentience by our futuristic definition of sentience!), and it was legal to kill a neonate if it wasn’t wanted or it was sick or deformed, would you then say that just because someone believes that they are not wrong because they have good intentions? They don’t have the Torah to guide them after all?
But do you really think that the Shittah that the determining factor between personhood and not is birth has no moral weight whatsoever?
It has weight, but it has not one iota of anything to do with the story I told.
I think it can be evil without being capital M “Murder”.
I think naming birth as the dividing line has no moral weight whatsoever, and anyone who would kill a full term fetus before birth is absolutely evil, and I regret I share the world with them.
Sam2,
Avram: There’s a reason I couched it in Halachic terms.
This doctor is not Jewish, and was not basing anything on halacha. I repeat my question from above: Is there any halachic shitta that states that we have carte blanche to do with a fetus whatever we want? If not, then what are you trying to prove to me through this discussion?
Post-birth abortion is murder.
But you wrote above: Just because we think we are right does not make someone with another opinion on it a murderer nor is there action evil. ?
But saying that Ubbar Yerech Imo Hu and that there might be situations where one can harm himself for his own good isn’t beyond the pale.
I’m not disputing that. If you read through my previous posts carefully, I do not believe that I used the term “murder”, nor have I stated what “my shitta” is.
And secular people who hold that the difference between personhood and not is birth certainly have a leg to stand on.
No they do not, because of key phrases of this “leg” that you are trying to give them: “situations” and “for his own good.” The secular world’s “shitta” does not contain these key conditions. Not at least the ones that exist in halacha. And that makes a world of difference!
Let me explain with a less emotionally charged issue. Suppose traffic lights were brought down in halachic discussions. Now, Rav A paskens that one may never run a red light. Rav B paskens that one may run a red light if rushing to the hospital during an emergency. The secular world, on the other hand, holds that one may run a red light whenever, for pretty much any reason. You cannot come and say that the secular world has a leg to stand on because of Rav B!
popa_bar_abba,
I think it can be evil without being capital M “Murder”.
Exactly! Thank you.
Sam2,
Avram in MD: As far as I know, very few states allow late-term abortion. It’s second trimester or earlier.
And the pro-choice lobby hates that to pieces.
Up until now you have been trying to get me to accept the validity of the pro-choice position via a halachic shitta that defines “personhood” at birth. So what is the purpose of the above statement in your argument?
And there are Poskim who are pretty Meikil about terminating a pregnancy. Not carte blanche, no. But there are Poskim who will allow it for relatively minor reasons.
I have a strong feeling that there are some important details omitted from that statement.
And the Halachic Tzdadim are important. Again, they might not prove the doctor’s intentions, but they should have strong bearing on the relative morality of the case.
Using the traffic light example from above again, if a person who believes they can run a red light whenever happens to run a red light on his way to the ER, the fact that his action is consistent with the shitta of Rav B is coincidental. It doesn’t magically turn his overall position on traffic lights into a defensible one.
Avram in MD – I thought the argument against person-hood of a fetus was from the Din of Rodef, that we don’t say “Mai Chaziz” about the fetus and it’s mother at any stage, even though we would say it once “Hotze Rosho”.
Not sure that is relevant to your main point though.
Sam2- So in your opinion suicide is simply stupid?
gavra_at_work,
I thought the argument against person-hood of a fetus was from the Din of Rodef, that we don’t say “Mai Chaziz” about the fetus and it’s mother at any stage, even though we would say it once “Hotze Rosho”.
That was my understanding as well.
The point I’m trying to make is that the secular threshold for abortion (if there is a threshold at all) is not a din of rodef. Therefore, I don’t think we should be using the halachic argument regarding fetal status with respect to the mother as a cover for the secular/pro-choice position. There may be overlap in some instances of real-world application, I grant that, but they are originating from two entirely different moral frameworks, so from that perspective I believe the overlap is coincidental.
Sam2,
Because we have other concerns like Chavalah.
What is Chavalah?
Sam2,
But I would never call it immoral to believe one can self-inflict pain. Stupid, but not immoral.
What would you call someone who stands aside while another hurts him/herself and does nothing?
Avram in MD:
Therefore, I don’t think we should be using the halachic argument regarding fetal status with respect to the mother as a cover for the secular/pro-choice position.
I would think that first you would have to prove that the Torah gives any care to the life of a fetus more than the monetary interest that it’s father might have in it.
?????-???????? ?????????, ????????? ??????? ????? ????????? ?????????, ????? ???????, ??????–??????? ????????, ????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????, ???????, ???????????.
Rambam in Chovel U’Mazik 4:1
????? ?? ?????, ????? ?????–?? ?? ?? ??? ??????–???? ???? ??? ????? ????, ???? ???? ?????.
Also, regarding Chavalah, the Rambam in Chovel U’Mazik 5:1
???? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ?????. ??? ????? ????, ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????–??? ??? ??? ????, ??? ??? ??? ????, ??? ??????–??? ?? ???? ??? ????, ????? “?? ????? . . . ??????” (????? ??,?): ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????, ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????.
gavra_at_work and Sam2,
As gavra_at_work mentioned earlier, here is the Rambam in Hilchos Rotzeach u’Shmiras Nefesh (1:9):
?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????. ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????
1. The fact that the fetus can have the status of a rodef at all implies that it does have an aspect of personhood, if not perchance full status (e.g., in cases such as the halachos gavra_at_work quoted from Chovel u’Mazik, although perhaps it’s possible that the reason is that we’re not sure whether the baby will have been born viable at all?).
2. It would also seem to follow that if the fetus did not have the status of a rodef, it would be forbidden to kill it. I don’t think this point is disputed by any opinion.
3. As noted above in halacha 7, if it is possible to not kill the rodef to save the pursued, one should employ those means. Current medical technology makes this much more feasible than in previous centuries.
The fact that the fetus can have the status of a rodef at all implies that it does have an aspect of personhood
Interesting theory and not implausible. I would expect there to be a source in Rishonim or Achronim as such (Rodef = person), and invite the Olam to help out with finding such a source. It would be difficult though. The closest that I can think of off the top of my head is a Shor Rodef.
Avram
why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed?
gavra_at_work,
Interesting theory and not implausible. I would expect there to be a source in Rishonim or Achronim as such (Rodef = person), and invite the Olam to help out with finding such a source.
I think in this case context is a better guide than a concordance. These halachos don’t happen in a vacuum, and all of the surrounding halachos are talking about human rodfim. If the fetus did not have at least some aspect of personhood, why would we need it to have the status of rodef at all?
ubiquitin,
why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed?
The halacha does not state that the reason we can kill a fetus when the mother is endangered is because it is not a nefesh. Rather, it is a rodef. Once partial birth has commenced, perhaps we say ain dochin nefesh because the mother and infant are now both considered to be pursuing the other, and thus we cannot put more value on one than the other.
Sam2,
Pshat in the Rambam is the exact opposite. The whole point is that a baby can never be a Rodef during labor because that’s Tivo Shel Olam and Ain Dochin Nefesh Bifnei Nefesh. Thus, before Hotzi Rosho, the fetus isn’t a Nefesh.
That is not necessarily so. The Rambam does not state that a partially born baby is no longer a rodef. How could it not be, the mother is still in danger! It makes even more sense to me that when the baby is partially born, the mother herself can attain the status of rodef with respect to the baby – and in this case where they are pursuing each other, we cannot choose one over the other.
Also, I am enjoying the discussion of these points, but I don’t feel that they are fundamentally relevant to my point, unless you can tell me that there is a valid halachic opinion today that holds we can abort a fetus when the fetus is not at all a rodef (and yes, I understand that there are opinions that set the bar for rodef with respect to a fetus lower than others). Because that’s what the pro-choice camp holds.
Avram
Please note you havent answered my question Here it is again:
“why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed? “
You replied “”The halacha does not state that the reason we can kill a fetus when the mother is endangered is because it is not a nefesh.”
Yes because we are note allowed to dammage a body just for nothing. If a person is inconvenieced by his leg, he cant remove it. In a life threatening situation then a fetus much like a keg can be removed. However once the fetus is born (i.e.) the had is out, it is now a person and no longer a fetus (this is the answer to my question above btw) and can no longer be killed even if the mother’s life is in danger becasue you now have 2 lives in front of you wheras before you hasd one.
please note this isnt the only way of understanding the Halacha. But is certainly a valid approach. Namley that until birth the fetus is not considered a person.
“Also, I am enjoying the discussion of these points, but I don’t feel that they are fundamentally relevant to my point, unless you can tell me that there is a valid halachic opinion today that holds we can abort a fetus when the fetus is not at all a rodef”
there are many such shitas! For example say the mother’s life is endangered because of cancer nothing to do with the fetus. Delaying treatment would endager her life, but innitiating treatment would abort the fetus. Can the fetus be aborted, when it isnt being “rodef” the mother?
There are shitas (not all) that say yes. a great source for these shitas and other cases is Dr. Steinberg’s encyclopedia on medical ethics (I dont have it in front of me to provide actual sources at this moment).
bottom line is many shitas hold life begins at birth. Consider the fact that killing a fetus only results in finacial compensation to father, A pregnant woman is killed if chayiv misah even if her fetus is due today.
THis doe snot mean abortion on demand is halachicly sanctioned much as amputation on demand isnt halachicly sanctioned.
I think in this case context is a better guide than a concordance.
There is also a Shor Rodef. The Halacha would simply be telling us at what point the din of the fetus changes from a Shor Rodef to an Adam Rodef.
ubiquitin,
Please note you havent answered my question Here it is again:
“why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed? “
Sorry, I thought that you had assumed in your question that since we don’t say ain dochin nefesh before the head emerges, then the infant is not a nefesh. I challenged that assumption as an answer to your question. To directly answer it, what changed is the baby’s viability. Once the head emerges, the infant can breathe on his/her own, whereas before that time, if the mother died, the infant most likely would too.
Yes because we are note allowed to dammage a body just for nothing. If a person is inconvenieced by his leg, he cant remove it.
Well, I’ll let you debate that with Sam2, because he does not hold that way. If I wanted to chop off one of my arms because I preferred having one instead of two, according to him I’m stupid but doing nothing immoral (i.e., against halacha).
Based on his argument thus far, I don’t think there can be any abortion whatsoever that can be challenged on halachic grounds, even up to full term (except perhaps for dina malchusa dina in states where late term abortion is prohibited).
there are many such shitas! For example say the mother’s life is endangered because of cancer nothing to do with the fetus. Delaying treatment would endager her life, but innitiating treatment would abort the fetus. Can the fetus be aborted, when it isnt being “rodef” the mother?
There are shitas (not all) that say yes.
Do the allowing opinions state explicity that the fetus is not a rodef in this case? It would seem to me that it could be, and perhaps that’s the reason for permitting the abortion.
bottom line is many shitas hold life begins at birth. Consider the fact that killing a fetus only results in finacial compensation to father, A pregnant woman is killed if chayiv misah even if her fetus is due today.
This argument does not convince me. If someone kills a neonate who is less than a day old (born at full term), or a premature baby younger than 30 days, the killer is not executed either (Rambam, Rotzeach u’Shimiras Nefesh 2:6). The reason is the viability of the newborn, not his/her personhood.
THis doe snot mean abortion on demand is halachicly sanctioned much as amputation on demand isnt halachicly sanctioned.
Our reasoning is quite different, but the conclusions perhaps not so much. Can we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?
gavra_at_work,
Can you define a “shor” rodef vs. an “adam” rodef?
Thanks!
Avram: An Ox (or any other animal or object) that is in the process of endangering human life may be destroyed in order to preserve the aforementioned human life.
That being said, I found a Rambam that is Mashma like you:
Rotzeach 1:8 & 1:9:
? ??? ??????, ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????–????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????; ??? ???? ??????–?????? ???? ?? ?????, ????? “?? ????, ????” (????? ??,??): [?] ??? ?? ???? ?? ????, ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????.
? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????–???? ????? ????? ?????, ??? ??? ??? ???: ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??????? ????, ??? ?????? ??, ???? ????? ??? ???? ???, ??? ??? ???? ?? ????.
The language of “?????” ties in the previous Halacha, and says to me that even though the fetus is given some level of personhood (although less than a born person), none the less as it has a status of Rodef you are required to kill it. Once it’s head passes through, they have the same level of personhood and therefore they are both/neither considered to have a din of Rodef.
I would still like to see clearer evidence in the Meforshim if anyone could provide it.
both/neither considered to have a din of Rodef
Neither.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?mfid=89097&rid=12271
Avram
You finnaly answered my question “Once the head emerges, the infant can breathe on his/her own, whereas before that time, if the mother died, the infant most likely would too.” So the difference between the two in your opinion is that it’s life is dependent on the mother. OR put another way it is not fully alive.
Is that fair?
“Well, I’ll let you debate that with Sam2, because he does not hold that way. If I wanted to chop off one of my arms because I preferred having one instead of two, according to him I’m stupid but doing nothing immoral (i.e., against halacha).”
I would yield to Sam2, he clearly know more than I. But I was always under the impression that purposly being chovel oneself for no reason is against Halacha . I dont see where Sam2 said any different, all I see is that it is not immoral. but may still be against halacha (As to whether the 2 are synonyms, is the discussion on another thread).
“Do the allowing opinions state explicity that the fetus is not a rodef in this case?”
I would have to check inside, I’m pretty sure some do.
” It would seem to me that it could be,”
Thats a big chiddush to me, and clearly not a simple understanding of rodef.
As far as the reasons that havent convinced you.
a. You only addressed one. There is still this: A pregnant woman who is chayiv misah is killed with her fetus inside her. We dont wait till she gives birth. not even a day. If the fetus is a person why is it being killed for its mother’s aveira?
b. Reegarding your response to finacial payment. That is a technical halacha in Retzicha and misas beis din. WE only kill for a vadei issur, since we dont know if the living baby is a nefel or not we cant kill for its murder r”l.
This is in no way similar to abortion for which the penalty is financial. There is no finacial penalty for killing a 1 day old infant much as there isnt for killing a 20 year old person. To sum up:
Abortion – punishement is its monetary value
Infant < 30 days – no punishment (because we cant kill for safek)
> 30 days – misah
Clearly a fetus is in a sepearte category than a baby.
“Our reasoning is quite different, but the conclusions perhaps not so much. “
agreed.
“an we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?”
This feeds back to the discussion regarding does halacha equal morality. Of which i am not sure yet.
What I do know is that the idea that a fetus does not equal a baby is not immoral, and in fact compatible with Halacha.
As to where that fact leads you, may be another story.
OR put another way it is not fully alive.
That is much too simplistic. Is someone on life support not fully alive?
“an we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?”
This feeds back to the discussion regarding does halacha equal morality. Of which i am not sure yet.
Are you also unsure that murder is immoral?
both/neither considered to have a din of Rodef
Neither.
I’m not sure where you get that from the language of the Kesef Mishna (or the Gemorah in Sanhedrin), would you mind elaborating? If ????? ?? ???? ??, why is the fetus Nogaiah to the din of Rodef at all?
Avram: Rashi in Sanhedrin 72B (which DY point me to) explicitly says (D”H Yatza) that the fetus is not considered a “Nefesh”, and is therefore a Rodef.
I’ll try to look into the Sugyah more over Shabbos, as I will admit I do not have a clear Havanah in the Gemorah’s answer of ????? ?? ???? ??.
ubiquitin,
But I was always under the impression that purposly being chovel oneself for no reason is against Halacha . I dont see where Sam2 said any different, all I see is that it is not immoral. but may still be against halacha (As to whether the 2 are synonyms, is the discussion on another thread).
Halacha informing the morality of an event – regardless of the intentions of the event’s initiator – is the linchpin of his debate with me. E.g.,
[Sam2:] And the Halachic Tzdadim are important. Again, they might not prove the doctor’s intentions, but they should have strong bearing on the relative morality of the case.
Are you also unsure that murder is immoral?
I’m unsure, and I’ll bring my usual example of Maria Schicklgruber.
DY
Fair enough, though It depends on what you mean by life support. But that is another topic.
Though there is a difference once the person is alive, then he is fully alive until dead. Whears a fetus is not fully alive while dependent on the mother. IT is like her foot, or yerech imo if you will.
“Are you also unsure that murder is immoral?”
No. why?
I am saying that abortion in society’s view (which is not immoral or unreasonable) and according to some in halacha as well is not murder. (though not neccesarily mutar)
Everyone,
I really appreciate this discussion, but have to confess that it’s rapidly going beyond my realm of knowledge (if it hasn’t already since the beginning of the thread). I would also like to mention at this point that I didn’t articulate what bothered me in my original story very well.
No, I do not think it is ok to perform tests that wouldn’t change the prenatal care or actions at birth, but are intended solely to determine whether the baby was wanted or not. But upon reflection, we’ve had other care providers offer the same testing, with no mention of abortion whatsoever. And we’ve just said no thank you, and I didn’t feel bothered. More so, it was the ease and quickness in which abortion was mentioned, like it was no big deal, and what any “sane” person would surely want to do. It was, as I mentioned above, the cultural mindset that bothered me.
So the point is taken that I can probably be more open minded about the morality of abortion for potential problems (though I’m extremely uncomfortable with the idea on an intellectual and emotional level), but I still think the doctor’s benevolent intentions were coming from a very wrong place.
And honestly, if the best answers to my question about murder being immoral are wishy-washy, I don’t know that I’m not too distant in worldview to even continue this discussion.
Sam, I don’t know the precise hagdarah either, but at least you’re not throwing out the concept for lack of knowing one.
I think on demand abortion and some of what goes on with end if life issues is unambiguously immoral. The fact that there may be some fuzzy, in between cases, doesn’t change that.
ubiquitin,
IT is like her foot
I am saying that abortion in society’s view (which is not immoral or unreasonable)
These words are saddening to me.
Sam2,
Hence, it’s just Nezek to abort.
What really bothers me in this sentence is the word “just.”
Avram:
Regarding the first quote. I was quoting those much greater than I http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=31&daf=58&format=pdf
Regarding the second quote the “view” I’m reffering to is that a fetus isnt a life. which I believe is not an unreasonable view (even if wrong), nor can it be since it is not neccesarily against halacha.
edited
If ????? ?? ???? ??, why is the fetus Nogaiah to the din of Rodef at all?
Many have asked this kashya. See end of ???? ?????? ?”? ????? ?”?. It doesn’t change what the Gemara and Rambam say.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1447&st=&pgnum=439&hilite=
Regarding the first quote. I was quoting those much greater than I
Out of context. The Gemara is not equating abortion with amputation.
DY
This discussion isnt limited to abortion per se.
The question is, is the idea that a fetus does not equal a full fledged life, an immoral one.
clealry the answer is no, and Ive provided several rayahs to that end.
Including Ubar yerech imo (regardless of context), that a preganat woman is killed with her fetus if she is chayav misah, that there is finacial payment for killing a fetus etc etc.
As mentioned above this does not mean abortion on demand is mutar. Just becasue a fetus is not a life doesnt mean we can kill it, for any number of reasons. (Some of which would probably make Avram sadder than a fetus being “just a foot”, eg some say it is hashcasas zera)
and yes some shitas do apply chavala to abortion eg Maharit chelek 1 97,
Sam2,
Avram: I’m sorry that the Shittah of many Rishonim and Achronim “bothers” you.
I will admit that I do not fully understand the shittos you are referring to or the reasoning that underpins them, but that’s not what bothers me. What bothers me is the use of these shittos to defend the cultural environment in which we find ourselves. I highly doubt that those shittos were intended to kasher the fact that almost 75% of abortions in the U.S. are done because of financial concerns or concerns about disruptions to life/career/etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.