Under what circumstances abortion is permitted in Jewish tradition

    In the case of danger to the life of the mother, Judaism permits abortion. A fetus is an example of human life, and life is always sacred, so abortion is permissible if and only if it serves to save another life, the life of the mother. In the event of a conflict, when there is reason to believe that the mother or her child will survive, but not both, precedence is given to the precedent life, the life of the mother. The Jewish position is an example of a greater good defense for the perpetration of a deed which, in and of itself, is regarded as evil on the premise that all life is sacred. The principle has been most often invoked in cases of breech delivery, ectopic pregnancy, toxemia, and placenta previa deemed to threaten the life of the mother. Due to medical advances, such cases are rare and becoming rarer.

    If this is a fair summary of the traditional Jewish position on abortion, it remains to be asked if said stance has a basis in Torah recorded in the Bible - it is obvious enough that it is reflected in Torah recorded in the Talmud and other traditional Jewish sources.  

    It is not difficult to see that the traditional position has biblical warrant. The position depends on a legal distinction between a mother and the life she carries within her. The two are accorded discrete legal statuses until the event of birth, the separation of the baby from its mother’s body, at which time the baby is granted the status of a person, or nefesh, in the legal sense. The legal inequality goes back to Exod 21:22-25:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Based on reckoning may or may not refer to the gestational age of the fetus; regardless, “halakhic Jewish exegesis infers that, since the punishment is monetary rather than execution, the unborn fetus is not considered a living person and feticide is not murder (cf. 12-14 n.); hence abortion is permitted when necessary to save the mother (Rashi and Yad Ramah to b. Sanh. 72b; see also Gen. 9.5-6 n.)” (The Jewish Study Bible (Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004] 154).

    Exod 21:22-25, which may reflect law of the 9^th-8^th cent. BCE under the Davidic monarchy, underwent revision centuries later in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora. According to the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) produced in Alexandria Egypt in the 3^rd cent. BCE, feticide is murder if the fetus is fully formed. LXX Exod 21:22-25:

Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman, and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine. According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment. But if fully formed he shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    Why the change? A reasonable hypothesis is that Jewish legists of the time regarded the revision as a necessary measure to preserve the level of respect for life that had once been promoted by the old formulation. In the changed circumstances of Hellenistic culture, to which Jews were tempted to accommodate, induced abortion was a common method of terminating unwanted pregnancies. Equating the abortion of fully formed fetuses with murder was a counter-cultural act of resistance.

    All life is sacred according to biblical tradition. The God of the Bible enjoins all life to be fertile and increase and abound in its habitat. An explicit, full-throated affirmation of the goodness of propagating life is a distinguishing characteristic of biblical literature: see Gen 1. One is hard-pressed to find similar affirmations outside of the Bible’s sphere of influence. But not all life is accorded equal respect. Take, for example, Gen 9:5-6:

But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image did God make man.

    The history of interpretation of this passage is summarized in The Jewish Study Bible (p. 25):

“Human life is sharply distinguished from animal life; the idea that human beings are created in the image of God (1.26-27) requires a higher degree of respect for human life. In the Talmud, v. 5 is interpreted as a prohibition of killing oneself (b. B. K. 91b), and v. 6 is cited in support of the prohibition of abortion (b. Sanh. 57b). Jewish law strictly forbids suicide and allows abortion only in extreme situations and never for the purpose of birth control.”

    Note: excerpts from the Hebrew Bible are taken from the translation of the Jewish Publication Society (1985; 1999) = NJPSV, available online (after registration). The excerpt from the Septuagint, from the New English Translation of the Septuagint (2009) = NETS, available online.

    A case has been made by Jewish feminists for accommodating Jewish practice to the prevailing ethos of the feminist movement. From the majority feminist point of view, any approach which takes the choice of interrupting a pregnancy away from the one who is pregnant and places it into the hands of a third party, religious or secular, is to be resisted. For a sampling of opinion from an Orthodox Jewish feminist perspective, go here.  For a non-feminist Orthodox Jewish perspective, go here.

Comments

[Benjamin]

Do you think that the adultery ordeal in Numbers 5:11-31 is designed to induce an abortion? Specifically, v. 27 describes the nature of the punishment for adultery: "her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away." This clearly means infertility, but might it not also mean miscarriage of an illegitimate child?

This might not directly address human-induced abortion, but it may inform a discussion of the value of human life in some way.

Thoughts?

[JohnFH]

Hi Benjamin,

There is overlap here. In the relevant tractate of the Talmud, Sotah, trial by ordeal (by drinking the potion) was expected to trigger a miscarriage / abortion in a guilty party.

Trial by ordeal was (and remains, in some African societies) a widely attested approach to resolving judicial disputes. It needs to be understood from the inside, based on careful ethnographic study.

I got started on the topic here:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/04/trial-by-ordeal-in-the-bible-and-the-ane-tikva-frymerkensky-and-unpublished-manuscripts.html

Kurk Gayle's etic (as opposed to emic) approach to the text struck me as a giant step backwards:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/05/a-response-to-kurk-gayle.html

Unfortunately, I have not yet had a chance to take the subject up again.

[John]

We are studying Exodus on Wednesday nights and had chapter 21 a couple of weeks ago. Based only on the text, not on Jewish interpretation of it, could it be taken this way, in your opinion?

If the woman miscarries and the fetus lives, there would be a fine only. If the woman miscarries and the fetus dies, the offender would be executed. Stage of development would not directly come into play, just if the fetus lives or dies. "No other damage" would mean the fetus (now born) does not die. "Other damage" would mean the death of the fetus in addition to the fact of the miscarriage.

Your thoughts? Thanks.

John

[JohnFH]

Hi John,

The language of the passage, if read in isolation from Ancient Near Eastern parallels and in isolation from its native (Jewish) history of interpretation, is terse and gapped enough to allow the sense that you propose.

However, it is not recommended that a text, much less a biblical text, be read in isolation from precedent and coeval parallels, and from its own native (in this case Jewish) interpretation.

Finally, not to read Scripture in conjunction with traditional Jewish interpretation thereof seems obtuse, given that Jesus said, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it” (Matthew 23:2-3a); and the praise of scribes (Matthew 15:32) - in particular, those who possess treasures new and old. So I wouldn't forget the old.

ANE parallels: the Hittite laws vary the monetary compensation based on the gestational age of the fetus that dies.

In the Code of Hammurabi and the middle Assyrian laws, the legal consequences of causing a woman to miscarry if the woman dies are variations on the principle of lex talionis - appended to case law in the Exod passage. It is the pregnant woman's death that is in question when the principle of talionis is applied, not monetary compensation, which applied to a lost fetus.

Once again in the Laws of Hammurapi, if the pregnant woman who dies belonged to the upper class, her assailant’s daughter was put to death – an example of vicarious punishment.

The Middle Assyrian laws prescribe torture of the guilty side when the pregnant woman dies. Only the oldest laws, the Sumerian laws, make a distinction between accidental and intentional assault.

It should not be too difficult to see large overlaps but also, highly significant differences.

I hope that helps. Blessings on your Bible study.

[James Pate]

Hi John. Here's a post of mine that discusses this issue. Some of it overlaps with the information you provide, but there is also some other material.

http://jamesbradfordpate.blogspot.com/2009/03/judaism-abortion-and-joan.html

[JohnFH]

Thanks for the link, James. There is a lot of overlap, and what fun that MShaffer saw fit to comment.

[Christianophobie]

Very interesting, honestly I didn't know this point about abortion in judaism.

[Theophrastus]

Your summary of when abortion is permitted in contemporary Orthodox Judaism is incomplete.

In particular, there are two additional factors that can justify abortion:

(1) the mental health of the mother. It is a matter of controversy how severely the mental health of the mother must be impacted by the pregnancy/birth to justify abortion.

(2) birth defects in the baby. It is a matter of controversy how severe the birth defects in the fetus must be to justify abortion.

These rules are codified in Israeli law, for example (see sections 312-321 of the penal code)

Outside of Israel, since different poskim rule in different ways, an individual woman or family would consult with the halachic authorities in her particular community. However, in practice, without strong community halachic guidance, an individual Jew is able to rely on any reliable posek. This means that in practice, fairly liberal guidelines exist for abortion.

See http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion

I'll leave it to you to decide whether you like or don't like these various rulings. But as a matter of simple fact, they form an integral part of Orthodox Jewish bioethics today.

[JohnFH]

Hi Theophrastus,

You are right that my presentation is incomplete. Perhaps I should deal with the issues you raise. A few preliminary thoughts.

I would think that the mental health consequences to the mother should she elect to abort also need to be considered.

As far as electing to have children with Downs syndrome, for example, it seems to me that the case is strong for being very guarded about permitting this. Have you seen "Praying with Lior"?

On the other hand, there is no doubt that some cases - if the fetus is known to be horribly deformed for example - pose special problems.

All of these issues are discussed not only by many posekim but also by individual Jews with hardly any consensus to be noted. The debate is difficult to summarize. There are after all pro-life Jews - it is likely that their numbers are growing as they are in the general population; on the other end of the spectrum, there are pro-choice Jews who would refuse to disapprove of any choice a mother might make, legal and, in some cases, extra-legal.

Thanks for the additional link. I'm familiar with the article, which represents an Orthodox feminist viewpoint.

This statement you make does not go far enough:

"without strong community halachic guidance, an individual Jew is able to rely on any reliable posek."

In fact, many Jews - like many Protestants and Catholics - don't rely on any religious authority at all, but simply follow their consciences. If their consciences are shaped by traditional values, that's one thing; if they are shaped by a pro-choice, libertarian outlook, that's another.

This statement you make is misleading:

"in practice, fairly liberal guidelines exist for abortion."

That is true only insofar as the individual Jew and the posek she relies on if any are "fairly liberal."

No less an authority than Britain's chief rabbi has a different take on the matter:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/05/21/science-ethics-and-abortion-the-perspective-of-britain%E2%80%99s-chief-rabbi/

[Theophrastus]

"Liberal" was an ill-chosen word in my not above. "Lenient" would have been a better choice.

Although R. Sacks is a beloved Rabbi (particularly important in presenting Judaism to the broader British and English-speaking non-Jewish community), I have not often heard him regarded as a halachic authority. Indeed, there is a great deal of discussion about his lack of power vis-a-vis the London Beis Din. Thus, within United Synagogue circles, his halachic opinion is considered less important than that of Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu (retired).

However, your point is valid -- if a woman considers herself bound by the rulings of London Beis Din, she would need to subject herself to London Beis Din standards (which despite R. Sacks' statements are considerably more lenient than Catholic standards -- e.g., the London Beis Din has long supported stem cell research).

In practice, there is a long tradition in Judaism when there are dissenting opinions of being able to rely on the more lenient opinions. This tradition dates at least back to the Talmud, and is the reason that almost all authorities posek like Beis Hillel rather than Beis Shammai.

Perhaps the best known case of relying on a lenient opinion relates the kashrus of milk -- based on a ruling by R. Moshe Feinstein, USDA certification (rather than Cholev Yisroel) is sufficient to obtain the Orthodox Union hechsher. It is rather amazing that this view became so extended and widespread within Modern Orthodoxy. Even R. Feinstein's original opinion is based on a very narrow case (an infant unable to nurse) -- and on the basis of this requirement, an entire rabbinic prohibition was relaxed. (Of course, many Orthodox communities hold to a stricter standard of Cholov Yisroel -- but those Orthodox Jews who do drink supermarket milk do not feel they have sinned or in any way stepped outside the boundaries of their religion.

In the case of abortion (as with much of the case of Jewish medical ethics -- certainly the hottest field in contemporary halacha) the issues are rather more contentious and unsettled than kashrus: but the same principle applies -- there are a variety of opinions that can be relied upon and at least within the Modern Orthodox community, this means that one can rely on a lenient position.

Of course, you are right that (outside Israel) an individual can simply make up her own mind, but that my point is that she can rely on a lenient opinion and still feel completely within the boundaries of orthopraxy (halachic Judaism). (In Israel, secular law in this instance has been aligned with the Rabbinate's opinion.)

This entire discussion is sometimes subsumed under the title of halachic flexibility.

I believe that at least within contemporary Catholicism, there are rather more rigid standards applied to infallible pronouncements from the Magisterium. While individual Catholic communities may have additional teachings that members are subject to, there is no principle (as I understand it) in Catholicism of appealing to a more lenient opinion and staying within orthopraxy.

[scott gray]

john--

you seem to place some sort of primacy for emic over etic justifications for behavior and actions. do i read you correctly on this?

scott

[JohnFH]

I try to, Scott, but I don't always succeed. Feel free to elaborate.

[scott gray]

John—

Lengthy; sorry. Edit as you see fit.

I’m not sure what your exact understandings of emic and etic are; I’ll assume we’re talking from the same definitions, and make corrections and apologies as we go.

I consider emic to be closest to ‘lived experience.’ And I think the primacy you, and I would argue most people, give to emic understandings over etic are at the root of the conflicts and controversies over abortion; lived experiences feel ‘truer,’ or more authentic, than math or number-generated arguments.

If your lived experience regarding abortion is about fetuses as babies, and you have or want kids, and have been through successful birth and raising infants, you’ll be against them in principle. If your lived experience regarding abortion is about quality of life and about who controls whom, and people’s rights to make individual choices, or about unsuccessful births and child raising, you’ll want them on the table.
I think theological and social principles derive from the emic more than the etic. Since all of the stories and prescriptive passages you cited are rooted in birthing and rearing, the principles are going to lean toward carrying to term. If scripture contained stories about women’s control issues, especially those regarding conception and child rearing, and stories about anencephalic births, different principles might be more prominent.

We can influence people’s principles so that they match ours best, I think, if we give them the kinds of experiences that confirm or imitate our own lived experiences that resulted in those principles. For instance, getting people to go to church to hear the stories that support the principles, so that the experience of church supports the principles desired.

Or, in the case of abortion, offering, or convincing or forcing women to see ultrasounds of fetuses so that the emic experience moves toward bearing a child.

I had a discussion this morning with a woman who had strong feelings, and articulated strong principles about abortion. I mentioned a purely etic argument: global population is doubling every 54 years or so. Abortion slows this a mite. This argument is true, and generates its own principles. But etic principles don’t carry much weight for people’s decision-making.

While etic arguments are rooted in truth, usually math or science, they don’t carry the strong feelings that emic arguments do.

scott

[JohnFH]

Thanks Scott.

I would have this to say, first of all. There really is no such thing as a purely etic argument. An argument presented by someone as etic is in reality an interpreted fact with a set of feelings and experiences, not just bare facts (an oxymoron), driving the interpretation.

For example, you think of population growth as a purely etic argument in tension or contradiction with the stigmatization of abortion. But there is plenty of recent research that shows that "the population bomb" is a false problem. According to this research, given a host of co-efficients in the realm of cultural and economic change, there is a self-correcting mechanism at work in longer term demographic trends. In fact, the trend is in the direction of sub-replacement fertility, with 42% of the world's population already in this category.

In light of this, how many children a couple has in not in need of regulation. Under current circumstances, least of all in the developed West and East, if a particular faith promotes large families, no harm is done in the sense of triggering a population explosion.

Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, most of Western Europe, Israel, Canada, Russia, and Australia, even China, already wish or will soon begin to wish that the biblical mandate "be fertile and increase" was written on the hearts of their citizens.

Now, I do not claim that my argument is a purely etic one. On the contrary, it is driven by facts but also by felt experiences, an affirmative reading of mandates in the book of Genesis, and most of all, on a particular understanding of the shape and ambition of love exchanged..

Why do we have children? From a Christian point of view, Thomas Dalrymple says it well:

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Why-We-Have-Children-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-26-2011.html

[shawshank redemption 5]

Let me begin by first telling you my stance on abortion. I agree with Judaism’s permission for abortion when the case is danger to the life of the mother and I used to only be ok with abortion if the case of this, rape, or incest. Recently, my friend got pregnant and though she originally wanted to keep it, her parents and the father forced her to change her mind. At first, I was so mad at her, I hate the father of the child but I thought she and I could raise it. My mind was changed when she told me all the reasons why it was the best choice. Those reasons were that she’d have to drop out of school, her parents would disown her and though she has three jobs, she couldn’t support herself and a baby, and she’d have to move in with the father, and though they had dated in the past, she wasn’t with him. He has always been emotionally and mentally abusive to her and they even got in physical altercations at times, though she was always the one to start it. Their relationship was the definition of unhealthy and it was not the environment to raise a child. Once she told him of her situation, he said she’d be a horrible mother and then stopped returning her calls. At least his family was supportive through the whole ordeal. My friend and I will always be heartbroken over the baby she could’ve had, I know the pain of this will never leave her, especially after being screamed at and being hit with rocks the day she went to the clinic. Though I want so badly to have been able to do something, I honestly do believe it was for the best. This situation changed my views dramatically and I now realize it should be the mother’s choice and no one else’s. I personally would still never get an abortion unless the situation involved severe threat to my life, rape, or incest, but I understand now that in some situations, abortion is best for the mother and the child.
In some cultures, women are punished for miscarriages, as if it was their faults. I obviously believe this is wrong and Exodus 21:22-25 makes me happy to know people other than the mother could be punished for a miscarriage. I believe that even today, if people hurt a pregnant woman and she miscarries, there should be punishment. No, I don’t think it should be an eye for an eye, but they should be sued and forced to pay or do whatever the mother sees fit (within reason). The change in LXX Exodus 21:22-25 is not a good change because in my opinion, the punishment should be the same if the child is fully formed or not.

[JohnFH]

That is a dramatic story, SR 5. It is not that unusual either. But I'm wondering why bringing the baby to term and putting him/her up for adoption was not considered. I have seen this work before and I have also seen the joy of couples who cannot have children who adopt such a child.

Any thoughts?

[Nell 1]

I never knew this circumstance existed under Jewish tradition regarding abortion. I do not feel as though the mother’s life has more importance over the unborn human’s life. God cares for all of His children and wants them all to live. If having a child was to affect the mother’s health, or even a rape occurred, I don’t see abortion as being the only solution but it is one that will be brought to the table. There are also many other options out there to help mothers who have babies that they may not necessarily want. Life is not something to just take away from an unborn child, even if one feels that they are incapable of knowing what is going on in the world around them. God knows that is going on and wants to preserve all of His children. Women have many options other than abortion such as adoption. Sometimes having a baby may seem to be more of a burden in someone’s life but choosing to end that unborn child’s life should not always be the first choice. There are many people in the world who are incapable of having children. Instead of abortion being the first option, one should consider adoption. The baby will then be taken care of and the mother may feel more reassured knowing that her child is now in good care.

[True Grit 1]

Wow, this is surprisingly very unfamiliar to me. It’s always good when you can say you learned something new today! I am Catholic, and this is very opposite of what we are taught. We believe that a fetus is a life and should be saved and celebrated. While Judaism believes to save the mother in that situation, I find that technology these days is very advanced. I don’t see this event occurring as often as it once did, back when very little medical care was practiced. Nowadays I see doctors doing what they can to make sure the mom and baby are both in healthy condition. Medication and procedures these days are absolutely mind blowing. Going off of what Nell 1 posted, I agree completely. Abortion is not the only answer to not becoming a parent. Adoption is a great option, and many infertile families would be more than willing to welcome that new life into their home. Actually there is a such a waiting list for this. In conclusion, in an emergency situation, I believe Judaism has it right, but protect both the newborn and mother as best as possible.

[Nell 4]

I would have to agree with True Grit 1 and Nell 1, because I never was aware of the circumstance of the Jewish traditions regarding abortion either. I've been a Lutheran my entire life, but abortion is a tough topic to talk about when it comes to faith or what I believe is morally right. I do agree that abortion is not the only answer. Most people don't think of an alternative solution such as adoption. Sometimes that’s not always a good answer either, because it doesn’t guarantee any child a permanent home right away. Some of the children could fairly well end up in foster care, orphanages, or even shelter care. It’s hard to pick one’s future. When you actually dig deeper for those who were raped by family members or just in general makes you think is abortion the right solution? Some may say yes, some may say hell no, but no one can actually answer that question till their in that awful situation or had that experience. Our decisions in life change all the time. So in conclusion I would also have to agree with the belief of Judaism to protect the newborn and the mother as best as possible. Do what would be best for the child and the mother.

[Truman 1]

Truman 1,

I really think that the story that Shawshank Redemption 5 told was a great example of why someone would want to get an abortion. I think that their friend did the right thing and think about why it would be a good idea to have the child and also why it would be a bad idea to have the child. I think that they weighed the pros and cons and made the right decision for her and her future. I do however disagree that it should be the mother choice and their choice only. I do think that they are the most important person in the issue, but you can not take the father of the child out of the picture. I think that it is just as much his right to have this child. I know that many would disagree, but put yourself in that position and you didn’t have a choice. I think that you would feel differently. Again I think that each situation is unique and presents its own problems and needs to be handled differently.

[Pulp Fiction 3]

I also believe that abortion under different circumstances can be right and wrong. Since the life begins at conception, having an abortion is intentionally taking a life of another human. Another reason why I am against abortion is because there are many families out there that are waiting to adopt a child so having the child and putting he/she up for adoption is a viable alternative to an abortion. As for the case of people that have an abortion due to rape or incest, if you get the proper medical care right away you can ensure that the women will not be getting pregnant. And by having the abortion you are punishing a child who did no crime.

There are so many different circumstances that come up that can have an impact on people’s decisions on being for or against abortion. I believe the topic of abortion will continue to be debated for years to come and people will always be arguing about the matter.

[True Grit 3]

The topic of abortion is always a touchy subject, and I grew up in a Lutheran family, and abortion was never really talked about. I respect the fact that in the Jewish faith, they would try to save the mothers life, because you always here of doctors saying that they want to get the baby out as safely as possible. I don’t really have a point of view on abortion, I think that it should be the females choice and until you are in that situation, nobody should judge it. I know the Bible says thou shall not kill but in some circumstances, to save a mothers life it might have to be done.

[Pulp Fiction 4]

I have to agree with Truman 1, under certain circumstances abortion might just be the right choice for someone. But I think it needs to be a well thought out decision, because there is still a life intentionally being taken away, and never getting a chance to live. Another point I agree with that Truman 1 brought up was, that a decision like this should not just made by the mother. I also think that the father plays a huge role in making such a life changing decision, he is just as involved as the mother would be.

[chariots of fire 3]

I feel that getting an abortion just because the baby is “unwanted” or wasn’t planned is a pretty poor excuse to exterminate a potential human being. If a couple is old enough to participate is sexual activity then they should also be responsible enough to handle the consequences of a possible child. I completely and fully agree with the bible tradition that all life is sacred, and getting an abortion because a child is unexpected is very selfish in my opinion. Even though I am against abortion and support pro life, at the end of the day it is the potential mother’s decision on what she wants to do with her possible child.

[True Grit 4]

I do believe all abortions are wrong. I do not believe that under certain circumstances it should be permitted. This would open a Pandora’s Box I feel if we looked at abortion as we could allow under certain circumstances. I feel this way because I do feel that abortion is murder and to say we permit murdering a fetus under certain circumstances would cause us to question other punishments for murder. Whose to say that we would not start granting exceptions for people murdering other people.

[The Truman Show 5]

I believe that abortion is wrong, but in this case I believe that Judaism has it right in this case. While yes it is destroying a life, it is also saving one in the process. For if you save the mother, there will be more chances to bring the miracle of life into being. But that being said, all other pregnancies should have to run there course, otherwise the mother's are just committing murder on their unborn son/daughter. No other exceptions.

[breaker morant 2]

The issue of abortion is very controversial. This argument is on going and really, it's up to the person in the situation. Each religion can have their own "rules" for abortion and followers can pertain to these rules, but when it comes to personal belief, i choose that over religion. You must do what YOU want to do not what someone else wants you to. Although i feel everyone should be education on the subject, it's an ongoing controversy.

[Pulp Fiction 4]

I disagree with True Grit 4. I really like the Jewish law and the thorough explanation of it. The mother has put a lot more effort into living her life. She is a person that has friends and relatives who would be greatly affected if she were to die. While the death of the baby would be depressing, it wouldn’t be nearly as traumatic to the people who know the mother.

Also, it’s easier to justify the death of the baby because there’s so much that could have gone wrong with him or her. The child could die after a couple of years, and then neither the woman nor the child would be alive. Of course, the aborted baby could have also been the next great leader or philanthropist. But people find it comforting when they can’t be proven wrong. With the mother, everyone knows exactly who she is. The baby is easier to lose because we can just dismiss the idea that the world would have been better off with him or her, and there’s no way anyone could convince us otherwise.

[True Grit 12]

I agree with the Jewish stance on abortion. While I am a Christian and do believe that all life is to be respected, I do not see, in the rare circumstance that a mother's life is in danger, that it would be impermissible for the mother to have the baby aborted. My reasoning for this agreement is Exodus 21:22-25. This story insinuates that while all lives are to be respected, the loss of a fetus can be righted through a monetary payment while the loss of a post birth human requires an eye for an eye.

Another comment I have is less related to this specific article and more related to the topic of abortion in general. Why is it that we, as religious groups, individuals, or political parties, do not do more to promote adoption? It seems that it could be an option that not only allows the pregnant woman to continue life without that responsibility after the birth but also gives the opportunity for those who can not have children of their own to experience parenthood?

[True Grit 2]

Going off of True Grit 12’s comment, I believe people do not promote adoption more because many people cannot imagine their baby later on in life wondering why they were given up. I do concur with the article when it stated, “In the case of danger to the life of the mother, Judaism permits abortion.” I also think women should have a choice. This is my belief because what if the mother has other children. Should those children go motherless to save a baby that will also not have mother? Mothers are very important for child development and need to be there to help raise them. Women should have a choice in keeping or aborting their baby because if they are not financially sound, the child will be raised in a poor quality environment. Secondly, I believe if a woman is raped she should be able to have an abortion. If she kept the baby it may remind her of the horrific event and she might resent her child. Thirdly, a mother should be able to abort if the child has a life threatening disease or schizophrenia. I do not agree with parents picking and choosing their children, however, if the child will have a poor quality of life and will create a financial burden the mother should be allowed to abort. Schizophrenia, autism, and Down syndrome are the more common birth defects. I think a woman should have a choice only for schizophrenia due to first hand experience of what it does to a person. It is life long struggle against you and your mind. People do not realize that disabilities affect the whole family and some people cannot handle that. Life is precious yet; sometimes having an abortion will be better for the family and especially the baby. No child should have a bad quality of life.

[breaker morant4]

True Grit 4, I completely disagree with you. Abortion should be the choice of the people having the fetus. humans have been using abortion for along time and there has not been any crazy change in the morals of people. How could you tell a rape victim to go through nine moth of pregnancy and give birth to that child. How would you explain to that child who there father is? I like the way the Jewish look at abortion some things should not be looked at as just black and white.

[The Mission 21]

I always thought that abortion would be strictly forbidden throughout Jewish religion. Therefore it surprised me when I read that it was okay to allow an abortion as long as the mother's life was at risk. But couldn't it be said that if the mother's life was to become in danger, that was God's way of punishing her if the pregnancy came about through adultery. And I feel like it would be fairly easy to have the baby then give it up for adoption. It is my belief that even if the unborn child is still just a fetus it has the potential to become a great human being. And by ending the life we will never know what that child will become. It seems a bit of a stretch but what if that unborn fetus would go on to cure cancer and save millions of lives. Would you still make the same decision?

[Chariots of Fire 4]

The thing I can't seem to grasp about this is why would the mothers life be more sacred then the fetus. The mother has lived a life long enough to be able to have a child so why can't the fetus get to have a childhood and grow old enough to have a child of their own. I would understand if both the fetus and the mother had a probability of dying. Then you have the right to abort the fetus. Also, God has everything planned, maybe the mother has to die when the child is born in order for the child to learn a life lesson early on and grow up without a mother and become somebody great. I can't seem to understand when if ever we have the right to prevent, destroy, or alter someones life since God planned on having it happen the way it should.

[Chariots of Fire 5]

I think that its ridiculous to think that abortion is right under any circumstance. Yes, rape is a horrible thing but that doesn't give you an excuse to stop a child from coming into this world. By no means do you ever have to right to take another human being's life or even a "potential human being" for those who think there's a certain time table for pregnancy where the fetus isn't human yet. I strongly believe that abortion is murder and to be a Christian and not think so is outrageous.

[Dead Man Walking 5]

These passages surprised me a lot when I read them. I never thought that the Jewish religion would ever accept abortion, even if the mother’s life was at risk if she went through with the pregnancy. Although I believe abortion is wrong for reasons like unwanted or unplanned, there are situations that call for these actions. If both the mother and the child are going to die and an abortion could save the mother’s life, it should be allowed. Also if just the mother could die, then she should be allowed to make the choice of saving her own life or risking her life while giving birth to the child.

[Breaker Morant 3]

Abortion is obviously a very touch subject in our society, probably because the Bible doesn't actually directly say "abortion is right" or "abortion is wrong". I am a Christian and I believe that in most cases abortion is wrong. However, I do agree with the Jewish point of view in that it is permissible in cases where the mother's life is in danger. I believe in the case of life or death, the woman should have the choice to decide if she is willing to die in order to give her child life, or possibly choose to live and end the life of her unborn child. God, who is a just God, will judge her based on that decision. I don't think that as a society, we should be able to make that life or death decision for her. However, I do not advocate abortion in any other circumstance. I believe that God has placed life inside a woman, and it is His will that this child be born.

[Praying with Lior 2]

Abortion is a very controversial topic in the United States. Everyone has their own view on it and from my experience there are no persuading people from their views. Abortion when it saves the life of the mother should be not frowned upon. It sad but it has to be done in some cases because of medical reasons. A major issue surrounding abortion is at what time is a fetus considered to be a person. Some people say it’s at the point on conception and others say when a heart beat starts. My views are simple in my mind but others won’t agree with me. Abortion should be legal any time with the first trimester. Anytime after it should be illegal. People who argue the point that abortion should be illegal will bring the point up that a mother, who does not want or is unable to care for her child, should give the child up for adoption. This is a valid point but in order for this to work, the adoption process must be made simpler and money federal money must be used to support the increased number of children under the care of the state.