Life Before Birth
The right and wrong of life itself is fast becoming the crucial moral
and legal issue of our society.
When does life itself begin, and when does it
end?
May I prevent a life, may I hasten its end? May I tamper with the way in
which we begin life?
Can I change my genes, so that my descendants will all
have blond hair and blue eyes and be six-feet tall?
Surely a whole list of names come to
our mind with these thoughts- from Karen Quinlan, to Dr. Kevorkian, to Dr. Jiankui and the first designer gene babies -- names and cases that
were undreamed of half a century ago.
Can we find guidance in Jewish
sources, sources going back two, three thousand years, for issues that face
people today, in our Jewish 58th century, the gentile' s 21st century?
Abortion has come to the fore as an
issue again, as state legislatures weigh in on the topic of late term abortion.
Clearly, the most vocal answers, the
ones that get in the press, are either the complete “pro-life” anti-abortionists,
for whom all abortion, no matter the reason, is murder, or the very abstract
“pro-choice” for whom, it seems , is very simply, a matter of a woman’s choice.
What is the historic Jewish stance
on this painful issue.
For the Catholic Church, as for many
evangelical Protestant groups, abortion is a grave sin, and for many, it is
seen as murder.
In classic Christian doctrine,
unique to the Christian fathers, and borrowed from Greek mystic movements, the
moment the infant is conceived, the soul, the eternal, individual soul, enters
the egg, and from that moment on, we have a full fledged human , with all
rights and safeguards.
In
order to make light of the Jewish teachings, one must first look at Jewish
teachings on protecting children at birth.
Jews were very well known in antiquity for an
exceptional trait: we did not abandon deformed infants. You well know the Spartan practice of
abandoning deformed babies to the wolves. Only fully healthy children could serve
as warriors; therefore, any infant less than properly formed was doomed.
Here
is the law as it was recorded in The Twelve Tables of Roman Law: "Deformed
infants shall be killed" (De Legibus 3.8). It was clear in Roman law that
any baby less than fully desirable could be disposed of freely , and that applied,
very often to baby girls who could be exposed to the beasts. Roman law gave the
father “ius paterfamilias”, absolute power of authority over life and death of
any of his children. Jewish concern for the newborn was abhorrent to the
Romans. Thus, the Roman historian, Tacitus condemned Jews for their opposition
to infanticide. It was another proof of the "sinister and revolting practices"
of the Jews.( Histories 5.5.)
Having
said that, we can now turn to our topioc:
So,
what is our stance? What are our sources?
Our key text is
from Exodus, the portion of Mishpatim, Chapter 21, in the context of assault
and battery and accidental and intentional murder.It is the context of the
famous “ eye for eye.”
22
וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ
אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה
אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה
וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃
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.
23
וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן
יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃
But if other
damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,
24
עַ֚יִן
תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃
eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25
כְּוִיָּה֙
תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ (ס)
burn for burn,
wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Mishpatim
( Exodus 21:22)
The
Catholic Church based its position on the Greek translation , Septuagint, in
which the text seems to deal of death to the fetus, but this does not appear to
be our text.
The Torah speaks only of a
miscarriage, caused in a fight. If the fetus is killed, the aggressor pays only
a penalty. He has not committed murder, nor has he caused an accidental death.
By implication, in Jewish law, the fetus is not yet a living independent human
being.
We go to our next source, the Mishnah :
If
a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it
forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus.
But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person
for the sake of saving another.
As for
the penalty for hitting the pregnant woman, the Talmud Bava Kama 40a makes it
clear that what is involved in this fight is a valuation of the fetus in terms
of material damages, not in terms of taking a life.
In later Jewish law, also, in the
Mishnah and the Talmud, the embryo is not yet a living entity. The fetus has no
legal rights; it can not inherit property, nor can any purchase be made in its
name, for one can make no legal transactions on behalf of someone who does not
yet exist. In Jewish law, the fetus is ubar yerech emo--the fetus is a part
of the mother, just as her thigh is, or any other organ, stomach, heart, bones.
The Talmud explicitly calls for
abortion, up to the moment of birth, for the sake of the mother's life, because
clearly, as Rashi explains, before physical birth, it is not considered alive. Only
after birth is it alive." Clearly, terminating a pregnancy is not in and
of itself an act of murder.
From this perspective, Rabbis required
abortion in the case of physical danger to the mother, or even mental danger to
the mother even up to the moment of birth. The Rabbis actually considered the
fetus to be the equivalent of a “ rodef”, a very harsh term, a word used to
indicate one intent upon killing another—the fetus, in this case is the
“hunter”. Other rabbis used it to indicate “ rodef” as, even though Heaven
itself is pursuing the mother, as if to kill her, we must perform an abortion. There
are those Rabbis who justified fear of pain, or mental anguish or shame as legitimate
grounds for abortion in earlier stages. In all cases, the operative concept is
that the active ( mother) takes precedent over the potential ( fetus). However, the moment, any
part of the fetus emerges, whether naturally or by Caesarian, it is at that
moment, considered a full human being who must now be brought to full birth.
Great sages authorized abortion in cases which involved, not only the life, but also the mental and emotional health of the mother. The great philosopher, Ramban ( Nachmanides), himself performed an abortion for a gentile woman in order protect her form future sterility. They were, clearly, more lenient at the earlier phases of pregnancy, before the fetus began to take recognizable shape.
As an example of modern application, in the State of Israel, abortion is allowed with the approval of a termination committee if the
woman is unmarried, because of age (if the woman is under the age of 17 - the
legal marriage age in Israel - or over the age 40), the pregnancy was conceived
under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous
relationship, birth defects, risk of
health to the mother, and life of the mother
Abortion at will or personal choice?
Perhaps instead there needs to be a greater general principal between
the extreme ends.
Abortion is not murder, nor is the
unborn fetus yet a full human being, yet on the other hand we also are
concerned, lest we lose our sensitivity to the potential of life in each
pregnancy.
As Jews, we recognize that we
must confront moral responsibility from both ends of the equation, never from
an abstract absolute.
In
our tradition, every child born is a special event. May we make every effort
possible, so that, when life begins, at birth, that life is a blessing, a joy,
and a comfort for all. Amen.
For a summary of classic Jewish positions ( always more than one) :https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/08/abortions-that-are-kosher/
For a position paper of the Conservative moevement:https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/assets/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf
For a position paper from the reform movement: http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_statements/when-is-abortion-permitted-ccar/
For a summary of the debate within the Orthodox community: https://jewishjournal.com/analysis/293441/open-debate-is-n-y-s-abortion-law-halachic/
For a summary of classic Jewish positions ( always more than one) :https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/08/abortions-that-are-kosher/
For a position paper of the Conservative moevement:https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/assets/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19861990/feldman_abortion.pdf
For a position paper from the reform movement: http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_statements/when-is-abortion-permitted-ccar/
For a summary of the debate within the Orthodox community: https://jewishjournal.com/analysis/293441/open-debate-is-n-y-s-abortion-law-halachic/
No comments:
Post a Comment