I'm wondering about what consideration the fallibility of medical diagnosis is given when determining the fate of a fetus. Per this ... "The rabbinic experts also discuss the permissibility of abortion for mothers with German measles and babies with prenatal confirmed Down syndrome." ... because in my case I would most likely been aborted, if it was legal at the time, because my mother had the German Measles in the first trimester. Obviously I was an exception to the normally expected death sentence for fetuses exposed to GM in the first trimester. How does the possibility of statistical anomalies (incorrect diagnoses) fit into abort or don't abort decisions per Jewish law? Related, how does the concept of the, "precautionary principle," fit into Jewish law? Is there somewhere a tendency to fault on the possibility of viability of baby and mother given the chance that analysis of such viability is not perfect? I'm for one am someone who is glad to exist despite, "best medical information." Respectfully

In discussing the Noachide law against murder, we see the argument: "On the authority of R. Ismael it was said (he is executed) even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ismael's reason? - Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood man within (another) the man, shall his blood be shed. What is a man within another man? - An embryo in his mother's womb."

Every Jew must stand up for the unborn baby. Each child is a child of G-d. How can we not stand for life? We are Jews!! Abortion is the Shoah of our times. Remember the words of the great prophet, Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.

Some years ago I was told by a rabbi that abortion was permitted because the fetus, and then also the newborn, did not have complete status as a full human with all rights, until the 1st birthday. At the 1st birthday the baby would receive a spiritual completion. I have never heard this explanation repeated. Have you heard of this?

While rabbinic rulings apply to Jews, what about non-Jews? I would not have an abortion unless for one of the reasons delineated in this excellent article. But the scary thing about the “pro-life” movement is that they want to ban abortion for every woman. If you oppose abortion— don’t have one!

Murder is also prohibited for non-Jews. To legally allow wanton murder is prohibited for secular society as well.

Please visit my website and group, https://www.JewishLifeLeague.org. We believe that life, both born and unborn, is sacred and worthy of protection. The Jewish Life League provides information and resources on abortion from the traditional Jewish pro-life viewpoint.

What are the consequences of having an abortion out of convenience? There was no risk to the Mother's physical or mental health. The Mother is okay with her choice and therefore Teshuvah to absolve this will not take place. Thanks in advance

There is clearly a lot of nuance and room for interpretation in Jewish Law. A very interesting article.

everyone i know who had an abortion has regretted it later saying oh wish i had not done it i was stupidly persuaded but he /she would now be grown and next to me my mother in law developed diabetes with her last 10 th child the doctor said better to abort but she declined even tho she could have died my mother on the other hand had an abortion because my older sister was very difficult and she was afraid the baby would be like her i allways tell her off my wife was told by a female spinster doctor abort sh e being weak willed nearly followed her advice altho i was firmly against it [what do you leave behind on this earth except children] also have you seen how they abort by going into the uterus and cutting the embryo bit by bit hand leg torso head [ why call a baby embryo] except to make it easier to destroy it now on tghe other hand if the baby has genetic problem then i agree as long as the test is done again and again to make sure it is correct as ive heard of a brave jewish couple who went ahead and had a normal baby altho doctors told them opposite my sons rabbi at ohr abraham in bet shemesh adopted two paralyzed children allong with his own and husband and wife held the hands all nite these adopted kids whose parents had abandoned them what a heart they have shallom allen

Thank you for this timely article. Although I am against abortion, how can I hold a mirror at another's conscience?

Yes, I am also against abortion and hold life to its utmost existence. I cannot pass judgement against another conscience, but more information on the sacredness of life should be made available on the subject of abortion. A fetus is the living, breathing part of a women's body and feels what the mother feels.

If the mother carrying the embryo is suicidal and wants to abbort because she feels that the pregnancy is making her suicidle when really the embryo is of no harm to her, shouldn't it be considered that she is her own pursuer? Could it be that she has caused these thoughts to arrise in her own mind especially where the pregnancy was unplanned and unexpected or where her partner makes threats to leave if child is not aborted...putting her in a trying situation to choose her partner or child could cause phsycological upset...would her partner then be considered her and the embryos' pursuer?

What if she was raped? I would think that anyone who was raped would have the potential to become suicidal in that case, and in that state of mind, should definitely have their life put first.

Rape is usuallly not a sexual matter but a matter of taking, exerting control and domination. Rarely, does a pregnancy occur as a result of rape. When statistics were kept; around the 70's through 90's; female pregnancy due to rape was around 1/2 of one percent of pregnant women. Today, abortion on demand for any time and reason is crime against humanity.; and is seriously detrimental to the national female emotional, mental and spiritual health. Is a typical leftest, liberal, darwinism ploy to take the least of tradgic situations and blow them up to huge porpotions and would allow for abortion on demand, any time and any reason. The seed of humankind belongs to HaShem, is Holy; that's why we have command to males to not spill their seed; it is not their possesion.

I would just like to add that I had a job at the time and could provide for myself, but barely make it... Time, not a lot, but I figured it out! It seemed impossible at the time but somehow friends came forward and helped and loved me like never before. No one gave me money or watched my child for free on a regular basis, I did it on my own without child support. I am so proud to say that my faith has brought me great rewards. G-d is honoring me for the choices I made to give a living being life inside of me. All of the other challenges that come with the choices I have made are tests of faith and allowing Him to take control of the situation. As a parent of three little boys now I have come to realize that He gives us children and we take care of them and fight for there safety, but ultimately they are His. I can't explain the suffering I am going through, but I have to trust and have faith. I am not so religious, but I do have an amazing relationship. Is there something I am not understanding about the Jewish faith that constitutes for this kind of behavior from a very devout Jewish family? There will never be relationshal forgiveness, but I have forgiven. My son barely knows his biological father, I just continuously get a legal bully game from them.

I like this article coz it helped me out in my end of semester major presentation. THANKS> can you just send me the year in which ths book was published? including the page number from which this article was extracted.

it should be up to the persons must affected by an unwanted baby and be considered that if a person does not have the fianacial means to support an unwanted baby that she would have to rely on society for fianacial support and taxes would have to be paid by others it will cause a problem for soicety thereby draging down on soiciety it considered to be benifincial to the preagnant woman to have an abortion for others behalf

best comment on here^^^

God loves every child, no matter the circumstances of their conception. To say that the baby is unwanted means that we are negating the love of God. Also, your comment presumes incorrectly that there are only 2 choices for the mother - either have the child killed or raise it on her own. That's false and misleading. If the mother is not capable for whatever reason of bringing the child up and supporting him or her, or even just doesn't want to, then there are many, many loving couples who can't have children of their own, who would love to be parents tho this child and to care for him or her. In any case, He loves that child and has loving plans for him or her, plans that none of us can presume to know ahead of time. Maybe that child will grow up to be a loving mother, father, brother or sister, a teacher, scientist, president, etc. Maybe the reason God allows a child to come after a rape is because through that child, God can bless this world in unexpected ways to combat the evil that people like the rapist do. To assume you need to kill an innocent baby to achieve good is the complete opposite of Faith, and totally un-Jewish.

What part of the post by Kris don't you understand? She said, "I got pregnant from rape." How dare you then tell her 'you failed to use contraception properly'. People who have been sexually assaulted cannot be judged for the perpetrators not having used contraception. You are the one who needs to 'hold back on the indignant, proud tone'.

I got pregnant from rape when I was 22 and had an abortion. I think it is terrible that anyone would give themselves permission to call me a murderer. I really wanted children, and have them now with my husband. But at that time, I made the decision to not allow the continued growth of the embryo inside me, because *if* I were to continue any pregnancy, the child born must be mine to keep and love. At that time, I had no money, no partner and no time to care for (because of work) and no support system of friends, religion or family. It is not ok for any person or government to force me or anyone else to carry a pregnancy to term and then be forced (by circumstance) to give up a child. That is wrong, and that is permitted and condoned in the US today. It is not ok to judge me, or slander me, by calling me a murderer, either.

Kris - Im sorry you were raped and became pregnant. Im sorry you had no support system from family, friends and religion. But most of all, Im sorry you felt you had to kill that innocent fetus. If its growing inside you, its alive. Did you ever hear of adoption? There are thousands of couples who would have loved to raise that now dead baby. Shame on you.

Kris-You did the right thing. Only you knew the entire potential threat to your life from the rape and giving life to the baby of that rapist. It is wrong for anyone to insinuate that your thinking was flawed. Rabbinic opinion of psychological threat cannot be simply dismissed by anyone with an agenda. I've always leaned toward conservative views and yet now that I see people putting agenda ahead of actual humanity and real life situations I'm thinking I'm pro-choice despite the fact that some might abuse the freedom. There is no shame on you and the family and husband you have now are testimony in favor of my opinion. G-d bless you.

For every one adult looking to adopt a child, there are 4 stuck in the endless loop of the adoption system. Also, adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not pregnancy. Your reply is typical, hateful, misogynistic, and complete devoid of any compassion for the children that are ALREADY BORN that desperately need to be adopted out to loving homes before worrying about a clump of cells. Shame on you.

ladydi, your lack of compassion is scary. but out of curiosity - did you read the article? did you see that things are not black and white? did you read Kris' story? just a quick point - name "ladydi" is an interesting choice. Lady Di was pregnant at the time of accident from extramarital relationships, carrying a heir to a family of terrorist supporters. very interesting choice of name. Kris - i am very sorry to read your story. pain you went through should have being enough. i am not you, but i have some incite to the pain you have gone though. hope you have recovered from that horrible experience. please make sure that you have confronted any issues that might have arose from being raped. take care.

If there are thousands of couples out there that are willing to adopt these unwanted, rape victim children then why are there orphanages? Why aren't all of the children adopted? It's so easy to say what someone else should do. It's not so easy to set up to the plate and put your money where your mouth is. How many children have you adopted? Kris, I'm fully behind you. It was your decision not the decision of these hypocrites.

I would not adopt the child of a rapist. The father is a violent criminal and I would not want the child of that union in my home.

What make syou an authority on rape and carrying the product of that rape until it finally becomes a person. How dare you!!??!! Kris's decision had to be terribly difficult and you would dare to add another layer of pain??!!?? The chutzpah in your judgement of her is a true shanda.

Ladydi, You have no right to criticize Kris. The poor woman was raped! It's not just a matter of giving up the baby for adoption; there's the whole 9 month ordeal of pregnancy! Then the ordeal of childbirth! These can do tremendous physical harm to a woman's physical health, and her mental health for sure.

I understand the logic of this decision. You shouldn't be proud though. You failed to use contraception properly. Something that's easy. So hold back on the indignant, proud, tone.

She failed to use proper contraception?? Can you read? She was raped!

You missed an important fact. Re-read the comment and consider what you wrote...

She choose to not use contraception? Oh my, disgusting comment by a very small person. If you're raped, you don't get to choose anything and to justify the rape is almost as horrible as doing it in the first place.

Oh my Ben, it seems that you don't understand birth control very well. Some people are actually UNABLE to use birth control because of medical reasons. For example, I myself can't use the patch because the medicine levels cause uncontrollable vomiting, I can't use "the shot" because my bones break easily (broke my pelvis twice in one year at 19 years old, just from running) and bone fractures are a common long-term side effect of "the shot," and because of my history of cervical and breast tumors, birth control that affects my hormones (like the pill) isn't a safe option. I don't fail to use contraception properly....I CAN'T use contraception! Don't jump to conclusions with people.

I live in the United States of America and am therefore guaranteed by the Constitution a freedom both to practice my religion and from a government imposed religious doctrine. This is a fundamental tenant of the United States. While an individual may believe that abortion is wrong or acceptable based on their individual religious doctrines, it seems that legislating those religious doctrines in a country that fundamentally guarantees via the constitution that religion alone will not dictate law would be wrong. In Israel, it is a different situation as Israel is a country who's government is fundamentally built upon shared religious and cultural doctrines. So, while Jewish theology may inform the individual's decision to have an abortion, I would argue that in the United States, based on the Bill of Rights, it is appropriate to leave those decisions between the individual and their G-d. That's my two-cents.

I don't know if anyone is thinking of what Hashem would want to happen. Life to him is important any life even small ones. I myself believe abortion is murder. I am currently pregnant with my second child who already has a name, who by G-d was given a soul and is alive. I also have a medical condition of which doctors warned me not to have children because I could die in giving birth, but knowing we were all made for something, that my babies were given to me for a reason theres no way I could kill them because I fear for my safety. I'm afraid now , the babys almost due and I am afraid of what will happen-but I know for sure that if I have an abortion I'm killing someone if I don't I might live as I did with my last child. So its clear to me what I'm going to do although my life is threatened I'm going to have this baby.

you can't be forced into aborting, but as to what Hashem would want - according to Halacha it is QUITE CLEAR that you may, and possibly even SHOULD, have an abortion because your unborn child is a rodef.

@ Ahava, isn't a c-section the best way for you to deliver your baby safe ???and keep you safe ?? I had my two children by c-section , otherwise the first one would have been still born and my second child and I would have died.I did decide after my second child it would not be wise to have more children, as much as I wanted too, but I knew that I was responsible for those 2 children .

I agree that abortion is murder......if the fetus is growing, then it is alive and aborting it, in my opinion, is murder.

I am a Reform Jew, most comfortable with Reform for a variety of reasons, but I am an island alone when it comes to the issue of abortion. Although I used to think (prior to my own pregnancies) that elective abortion was "fine," I grew into a deeper understanding a number of years ago. I am a writer and have often thought of writing to those holding a "pro-choice" point of view in hopes of expanding understanding. Anti-abortion, pro-life views are completely compatible with liberal Judaism, when truly understood. I did have a small response article on abortion published in Tikkun magazine a few years ago. (Jan. '97). Any Judaic sources you could guide me toward would be useful in my writing. Thank you for your time and all your good work.

Does the child become human when it is able to live on its own or is it human when conceived? Science now tells us that a new unique DNA is created at the moment of conception. This new DNA only has the capacity to become a human being, doesn't it? How can it then be permitted ever to destroy it? Are we not placing women in the position of potential executioners when we say that they may "terminate " it? Is this not a kind of final solution writ on an individual level? Does that make it right, because an individual woman makes a decision rather that a govenment official?

this article is right on, but i am in the midst of a discussion with an old friend who is seriously pro-choice and i might have swayed him a little. when does a woman's personal decision to have an abortion severely threaten her people's existence? there are over 50,000 Jewish abortions in Israel every year and countless more Jewish abortions throughout the world. if not for the selfless decision to have large families by the hasidic and hariedi women, Jews would be headed toward extinction within one or two generations. this whole Jewish abortion thing (and liberal Jews are the biggest advocates for abortion) is nothing short of self-extermination. why are we completing what Hitler (amach sh'mo) started to do? how can we kill our own Jewish babies? i am not opposed to abortion, especially for well stocked populations. but when a tiny minority of people choose to nearly wipe themselves off the face of the earth with these barbaric procedures, you wonder who are our real worst enemies... Tragically, 'amoch sh'mo' would be proud.....

Would the "save-the-mother's-life" reasoning apply nowadays in light of medical advances regarding premature births? Instead of killing it, the baby could be placed in incubator after being removed from the mother's body.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

But you are incorrect. The position of most pro-life advocates is that there should be no abortion allowed. Period. I don't know the particular amendment that you are talking about, I just know the opinions of the people that I come into contact with--on the internet, and on the street, and right here in this discussion forum. People who tell even women who have been raped that they should be carrying those pregnancies to term because what happened isn't the fetus' fault, etc.--such voices represent a large segment of the pro-life movement.

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

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.

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.

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.

....I feel exactly the same way!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

To anonymous #3: There is no such thing as a partial birth abortion. The correct clinical term is late term abortion. Also, please understand that the decision to have a late term abortion is not one made in haste. You must be a man, or you never would have written such an insensitive response.

The baby could survive with massive amounts of help or mayevening little there are under 2lb babies born and grew into normal healthy children. The baby is alive and moving and hearing and capable of feeling pain. The baby has little cute baby feet you can hold up to a chart to measure the age. Especially any woman who has felt a baby kick inside her should know that IS a BABY. A person who has not yet seen the light of day. That's great the decision is "not one made in haste"...or isn't worse?

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

WHO in the USA uses abortion as "retroactive birth control?" That's crazy! I had one abortion and it HURT, emotionally and PHYSICALLY! I thought my insides were being sucked out! I was about to tell the doctor to stop, even if she wasn't finished. No woman outside the former USSR would choose this. The former USSR is a different story, I admit. I was shocked when a 50 Russian woman told me had had 10 abortions! But then I found out that birth control was hard to get at the time. Over the years I have become less confident of my 100% pro choice position; I'm more sensitive to life issues now. But rest assured, this is not one argument to use against legal abortion.

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.