(1) Justin 12/4/2007 10:01:00 PM
Excellent Synopsis
I thought this was a great overview of the Jewish view on abortion. I plan to use it in an 8th grade Hebrew School class I teach.


(2) Bob S 8/15/2007 6:14:00 PM
Answering Linda
1) If a policy says a thing can be done only in rare instances, that does not make it in favor of doing it; nor is it entirely against doing it. All you can really say is it is far more against it than it is for it. Therefore, on balance, Halachah must be more pro-life than it is pro-choice, and puts strong inhibitions against making that kind of choice if at all possible. If we make an estimate of 1-in-5,000 cases in which the health of the mother or baby are unquestionably or substantially at risk, then Halachah will be 99.98% pro-life. I don't know the actual statistics for this, of course, but even if it were 1-in-100, the point would be the same.

I realize you are saying if Halachah is not totally against, then it permits and that would make it pro-life. But, the error in that rationale is that it also promotes abortion as an expression of a woman's will alone. This article clearly does not support that. All it does support is an exception to the general rule.

b) Inconvenient 'is' a reason, it's just not a very good one. Neither are poverty, unpreparedness, stress, and fear. The question then is whether the reason for having an abortion is substantial enough to override our normal judgment and revulsion against aborting a human (or near-human) life.

c) Bringing in the 'If abortion was made illegal ...' argument is disigenuous because, for most life-supporters, it is not a question of all or nothing. Most of us do accept and respect the exception to the rule, and are not about to go along with trading one mistake for another. We just believe it wrong to take a life for anything less than saving another. Most of us would also allow for the case of rape, but would like to see more effort put into saving the child (to be adopted or give help).

d) I would also point out abortion was already on the books in several states and under consideration in several more at the time of Roe v. Wade. Roe and subsequent legislation changed three things. It made abortion the law of the nation, it made abortion discretionary, and it created an abortion industry subsidized at taxpayer expense. That created yet another issue entirely separate from abortion itself ... why taxpayers, who have nothing to do with the circumstances, inconveniences, hardships, choices, or mistakes of others, should be forced bail them out. Therefore, the constant refrain that reversing Roe would have the effect of 'killing women' is patently false and only used to stifle the legitimate criticism this is really about protecting the abortion industry's funding. There would be far less objection to a woman's 'choice', were not this deliberate fleecing involved, and you'd have far less to fear of it being outlawed.


(3) Richard Brain 7/15/2007 8:32:00 PM
Information is well presented.
I have found that the information presented to be very informative and leaned. Even though I am not of the Jewish faith, virtually all of what was written on this subject by Dr. Eisenberg to be in full agreement with my values and beliefs. Abortion does have its place but on a very limited scale, just as the Doctor mentioned.

(4) Sara 6/12/2007 9:29:00 AM
The Myth of Abortion on Demand
"abortion is only permitted to protect the life of the mother or in other extraordinary situations. Jewish law does not sanction abortion on demand without a pressing reason."

Having myself had an abortion, and knowing many other women who have, I have never met or even heard of anyone who had an abortion without what seemed to her a "pressing reason". It seems that the only reasonable judges of what can be considered a pressing reason, or what can be considered a serious psychological risk to the pregnant woman, must be the woman, her doctor, and her G-d (with rabbinic advice). Clearly, "pressing reasons" and "serious harm" are things which must be evaluated on a case by case basis.


(5) Linda 11/14/2006 4:38:00 PM
The Halachic position is obviously Pro-Choice
My comment is in response to another comment made by someone on this issue. That person's comment stated that the halachic position is pro-life. After reading the article, I was completely convinced of just the opposite. If abortion was made illegal, eventually no exceptions would be made to save the mother's life. Also, one cannot say that a fetus is not a child only when the mother's life is in danger. It either is or it isn't. I seriously disagree with the person who said that abortion is murder. A fetus is not a child until birth.

This person also said that "over 97% of abortions [are] being performed for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient". I would like to know where that statistic comes from. How ridiculous! People don't just have abortions for no reason. How could someone say such a terrible thing! Chas v'chalilah someone in that person's family should have to have an abortion!


(6) Margarita 5/21/2006
interesting article
interesting article, it makes one see thing not black and white, but in full range of colour. thank you very much for it, and thank you for not treating Judaism like blind law.


(7) Valerie Perry 7/5/2004
women retain right to choose life (or not)
In my opinion, only an individual women may determine whether carrying a baby to term is detrimental to her mental and emotional health.

As religious people, I would hope that all our actions would support the right to choose life for all women, Jewish or not. I believe that most women, given good support systems will simply choose to carry babies to term. Without adequate supports - economic and emotional - it is irrational to comment on an individual women's choice regarding her mental, emotional and physical well-being and health.

It also seems anti-Jewish to extend Jewish specific religious interpretations to other ethnic groups via supporting US Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion as a individual women deems right. We have never claimed the only "right way"; we have claimed a right way for us (a varied way that encircles us all in G-dness). Let us join together with all people and support economic conditions that allow Jewish people and all people to live free of horrific economic and emotional conditions with social justice that enables rational decisions in choosing life.


(8) Andrew Gelbman 6/9/2004
The Halachic Position is Pro-Life
The position of the pro-life movement is that abortion should be restricted to cases of rape, incest and threats to the mother's life. Since Halacha restricts abortion only to threats to the mother's life (generally) and the proposed human life amendment would not interfere in that, the proper vote is a pro-life vote.

As Jews, we are called upon to encourage the societies we live in to uphold the Noahide Laws, that includes the injunction against murder. Murder is defined as the unjustified taking of a human life. An abortion is the taking of a life. Judaism is clear, physical life begins at conception. This is a medical as well as spiritual truth. The Sages find a justification for an abortion (or more accurately, a homicide) in the case of a threat to the mother's life in the laws of pursuit. Essentially, that is a case of self-defense. All well and good. I have yet to meet a pro-lifer who would oppose a medically necessary abortion.

However, with over 97% of abortions being performed for no other reason than the pregnancy is inconvenient there can be no halachic justification for the current status quo.

Exceptions for threats to the mother's life are de riguer in any pro-life proposal as are exceotions for rape or incest. That position is more in line with halacha than the pro-abortion position espoused by so many misguided souls on the Left.

If one wishes to espouse liberal politics, that's fine. America is a free country and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, western liberalism is in most cases completely incompatible with Halacha.


(9) Ari Haviv 6/8/2004
voting against halacha?
Well Miriam, if you continue to vote for paganism then that's what we'll get. If you want to see the effects of no religious intonations in law then check out several european countries, some of which have banned shechita and pretty much all of them have hostile regard for israel. Thank God we have a president who can say Thank God. God is the basis for religious freedon-not secularism


(10) Richard Garcia 6/8/2004
Policy informed by belief
Any civilized society's laws are informed by underlying ethical and moral (read religious) principles. Most of us would agree that it is entirely appropriate to ban the burning of widows, but in many cultures this is considered acceptable. Furthermore, many politicians who maintain that, when it comes to abortion, religious belief should not dictate public policy, have no qualms about invoking religion when it comes to opposing capital punishment, the war in Iraq, etc.

The halachic position on abortion, while some ambiguities remain, is in my opinion a reasonable compromise between the two extremes in American society.

In a sidebar, it is curious to me that the pro-life position is considered an imposition of religious beief on public policy. On the other hand, the pro-choice position (I will avoid saying extremist because many mainstream politicians hold this view), which advocates among other things public funding of the procedure at all stages of pregnancy and advocates usurpation of parental authority in allowing minors to get abortions, is never referred to in the mainstream media as an imposition of belief on public policy.


(11) Rex S. Rambo 6/4/2004
Wonderful scholarly scientific halachic treatice.
Wow! This treatice on abortion should be compulsory reading for every major candidate. Dr. Eisenberg's views on this subject are awesome and overwhelming. What a geat person he is.


(12) Miriam 6/3/2004
voting halacha?
I believe Mr. Reuven's comment is valid but slightly misguided. Halacha dictates Hashem's will for what we, as Jews, should do, not how American law should be structured. As a frum Jewish voter, I have and will continue to vote "pro-choice" for the political reason that as a Jew who enjoys religious freedom in America and freedom from religious persecution, my personal Halachic obligation does not extend to American society as a whole. Rather than extend my Halachic daled amos to the public sphere, I would prefer to have an America devoid of religious intonation in law. It might work well for us now that the predominatly Judeo-Christian-valuing American Right shares many of our ideas, but we cannot set such a dangerous precedent of allowing religious jurisprudence to influence secular law; what if paganism became the prevailing social more? And Bris Mila came to be construed as the ultimate violation against the paganistic perfection of the human body, like in Ancient Rome and Greece? In this sphere, ruling that religion should have no role in the determination of secular law makes good sense for us as Torah Jews.


(13) Anonymous 6/3/2004
abortion and Down Syndrome
In debating the halachic ramifications of abortion, Down Syndrome (DS) should not be lumped in with lethal defects such as Tay Sachs. In 90% of cases, DS produces only a mild to moderate developmental disability. People with DS are much loved and valued by their families and communities. Most people with Down Syndrome can read, write, have friends and hold jobs. Bar and bat mitzvah for young Jews with Down Syndrome is now commonplace, with the young person reading the parsha in Hebrew and delivering their own speech. Halachically, in all but the most profound cases, a Jewish person with DS is obligated in mitzva observance. Even if a family decides that they would not want to raise their child with DS, there are many, many Jewish families ready and eager to adopt kids with DS. Considering all of this, I can't understand why aborting a child with DS could be halachically permissible.


(14) Anonymous 6/3/2004
Excellent article-difficult subject.
Abortion is a very difficult subject. I believe that all life is given by Hashem. I was a labor and delivery nurse and a neo-natal intensive care nurse. I cared for mothers who were having abortions because their child would be born without kidneys or other defects that were usually incompatible with life. I could not condem them; they were greiving already. I also worked along side of doctors doing emergency C-sections to save the lives of mothers who were having problems
because of the pregnancies. Many times these babies were born quite premature, and stilled survived.

The big problem that I have with abortion is the fact that it is often used as retroactive birth control. Too often I've known of people personally who chose to have an abortion to cover up an "inconvient" pregnancy. I am not talking about rape or incest. I am talking about people who chose to have a sexual relationship with someone out of marriage and now don't want to deal with the consequences of their choices.

I cannot tell you how many women I have talked to who have so many regrets after they have chosen abortion. Many have problems with post traumatic stress after their choices.

Yes, we need to consider the life of the mother, but we also need to consider the life of the fetus when it is not life threatening to the mother.


(15) Reuven 6/2/2004
Very good article
I would have to take exception with one important point. Many in the "pro-life" camp, including President Bush who is a devout Christian, support allowing abortion in the cases of threat to the mother's life, rape and incest. Agudath Israel of America, an esteemed organization guided by the positions of the Moetzes Godolei HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages in America) have supported the "pro-life" view (as long as there are exceptions allowed for genuine religious reasons) (see articles by Rabbi Avi Shafran, the organization's Director of Public Relations). If it would allowed just for therapeutic reasons, the whole abortion industry in this country and other parts of the world, including Israel, would be devastated. The "pro-choice" movement is unequivocally for unrestricted abortion as a fundamental woman's right...as encapsulated by the phrase that "it's her body." This position is clearly against the Torah, which does not believe in putting the whims of women or men above the will of G-d. It is also highly problematic for society in general. Medical science has advanced so that babies much earlier in pregnancy can be saved. Perhaps, these "humanistic" femininsts should spend a little bit of time in a neo-natal intensive care unit and see what is going on these days. Also, the idea that your body belongs only to you is problematic to society with other issues such as allowing euthanasia, suicide, drug use, etc.


(16) Anonymous 6/2/2004
the value of a Jewish life
Whether a person is pro-Choice or pro-Life, isn't it sad that only 50 years after 1.5 million Jewish children where killed by the Nazi's that over 1 million Jewish children have been aborted since the beginning of the State of Israel?


(17) Allan Levine, Ph. D. 6/1/2004
Profound and informative and essential details.
Thank you for providing such a profound and informative and essential details about the life-promoting values that are found in halacha on the issue of abortion. Most instructive for all serious, mature critical thinkers on the subject.


(18) Anonymous 5/31/2004
When Human Life Begins
The medico-legal issue of when human life begins is primary and fundamental in the American debate on abortion. The "pro life" movement invests the zygote (fertilized egg) with full human equivalency and wants legislation to support that essentially religious belief. Arguably, such legislation would be unconstitutional because it would constitute an establishment of religion under the 1st Amendment.

On the other hand, allowing late-term abortions that don't threaten the physical and/or mental health of the potential mother shows a societal disregard for the miracle of human creation.

I don't want a U.S. Department of Intra-Uterine Surveillance, but neither do I want partial-birth abortions so that the expectant mother can start graduate school on schedule.

M., 5/31/04


(19) Marion I. Lipshutz 5/31/2004

Dear Dr. Eisenberg:

The traditional Jewish view on abortion fits far more comfortably into the framework of the pro-choice movement than it does into the misnamed, so-called "right-to-life" movement.

It is the pro-choice movement that implicitly recognizes the right of Jewish women to consider the halachic position on abortion, to deliberate, and to make decisions based
on the dictates of their individual consciences.

By contrast, the so-called "anti-llife" movement wishes to allow government to supplant the role of a woman's individual conscience in decision making about abortion. Ultimately, the right to life movement poses a severe danger to democratic life and is insulting to all women.

Moreover, some sectors of the anti-choice, so-called "right to life" movement posit the offensive and anti-Semitic argument that therapeutic abortion is equivalent to the horrors of the Holocaust. Jews have an ethical imperative to refute this argument, which trivializes the horrors of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

Marion I. Lipshutz
proud Jewish mother and proud, pro-choice Jewish feminist


Dr. Eisenberg responds:

Dear Marion,
I can only agree with part of what you wrote. Give a choice between total ban on abortion and abortion on demand, I would have to support abortion on demand since there must be openings for halachically sanctioned abortions. Nevertheless, I would prefer a middle ground that provided for abortion in the limited cases that halacha allows. Regardless of what I would like the law to be, as a public policy issue, abortion on demand is very problematic. I am a radiologist and I see that abortion is used as "retroactive birth control." Halacha clearly views the fetus as a significant being and not as mere "fetal tissue."

You write that "It is the pro-choice movement that implicitly recognizes the right of Jewish women to consider the halachic position on abortion, to deliberate, and to make decisions based on the dictates of their individual consciences." Halacha does not really rely on the dictates of women's (or men's) individual consciences. There are fairly objective criteria for allowing abortion, most of which are medical (including psychiatric). The indications for abortion that are halachically sanctioned cover a very small minority of abortions in America. Do not misinterpret the fact that there is disagreement about some cases to infer that there is disagreement about the fundamental issue: abortion is only allowed for a threat to the life of the mother and according to some for abnormalities in the fetus. I plan to deal with multifetal pregnancy reduction in a future article in the near future. Nevertheless, abortion for economic, social, or other personal preference reasons is not halachically sanctioned. Abortion is almost never an issue of "choice."

Your obvious negative feelings about the political right in the United States really has little to do with the under what circumstances abortion is legitimate.

Best wishes,
Daniel Eisenberg, MD



(20) Scott Sterling 5/30/2004
Great article -- but leaves one major question...
A wonderful summary of the Jewish teacings on abortion. But the question remains (at least for me), at what point in development is the fetus to be treated thus? In other words, at conception, or implantation, or at another point? I would love to hear what the Rabbis say about this.