Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
A mother's life comes first
Q: Can you be a feminist and oppose abortion in all circumstances? Can you be a person of faith and support abortion in some circumstances?
From a Jewish perspective that is based on second century Mishnaic, fifth century Talmudic, mediaeval and modern scholarship, discussions of abortion reject its general practice and tend towards Sarah Palin's idea that G-d knows what we as humans cannot, including the fates of a mother and her unborn child. In fact, when discussing the use of birth control, which as early as the second century was considered legal in certain circumstances by scholars who were aware of the use of ancient form of a diaphragm, the sages use almost the exact wording as Palin where prohibiting its casual use; that G-d can see the wisdom of an unplanned pregnancy.
However, the trend of Jewish scholarship from those same periods not only supports the Arizona nun who was "automatically excommunicated" for agreeing with abortion that saves a mother's life but goes one step further: While recognizing some rights of an unborn child, traditional Judaism commands we abort a fetus that is determined harmful to its mother, sanctioning both physical extraction or the use of medicine.
Maimondes in his Code of Law from the 12th century begins his discussion of this subject by pondering the legality of killing someone who is chasing another with intent to do harm, particularly rape or murder, or is breaking into a house with criminal intent. In such cases, we are obligated to stop the assailant even with deadly force. While the modern pro-life movement stresses the innate innocence of all unborn, the sages view an unborn child who is endangering the life of its mother as if such a deadly intruder.
So, Jewish law says that the pregnant mother's life takes precedence since her soul has already entered the world but once the baby begins to emerge there are two equal souls neither of which can supersede the other. And that might be a hallmark of Judaism that can be applied generally: We are all equal souls on this planet and, while we are commanded to stop those who would kill even by in turn killing, no one of us possess a soul any more important than another.
By
Shmully Hecht
|
May 18, 2010; 2:55 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A theistic balance on the court |
Next: Choice and Karma
Posted by: katherineajackson | May 19, 2010 5:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
For me, it boils down to this: if there is another life form inside my body, using the food I eat and the air I breathe for its survival, then I get to decide whether or not it gets to stay there.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | May 18, 2010 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Katherine, don't you find it just a little contradictory to say you can both respect women and prohibit their choice about what to do with their body? How does prohibiting women from controlling their own body show them respect?
Posted by: twmatthews | May 18, 2010 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for the insight, Rabbi Hecht.
I tend to agree with you that it is possible that abortion may be morally permissible when the mother's life is at stake.
As you alluded to, the Catholic Church takes a very hard line on this,morally prohibiting any abortions, even when the mother's life is at stake. Unlike you, it rejects the notion that such an abortion may be justified as self-defense and it asserts that the fetus can never be
regarded as an "unjust aggressor." In such an instance it makes room only for procedures performed to save the mother's life which may inadvertently kill the fetus, but which are not abortive in nature.
While I appreciate the nuance of your argument, I worry about how that translates into social policy. In theory it seems easy enough to distinguish between when the mother's life is at-risk and when it is an abortion of convenience, but I tend think that in practice the distinctions become blurry and this becomes
an "excuse" to permit abortion. This may or may not be important. Your article does not reveal your ideas of the governments role in abortion, but when developing abortion policy, I think this is something to think about.
As to the part of the question about being against abortion and being a feminist, I would like to relay my favorite quote by Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is
degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Along these lines, the motto of the organization "Feminists
for Life" is, "Women Deserve Better than Abortion." So while bell hooks claims that one cannot be a feminist and be pro-life, I think that an ideology which respects women should prohibit abortion.
Posted by: katherineajackson | May 18, 2010 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
To Matthews: No, I don't find my position problematic at all. In fact, I find it contradictory that you claim to respect women yet think it appropriate to treat women's bodies and their children as "property to be disposed of," as Elizabeth Cady Stanton said.