JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rubystars on June 14, 2011, 01:28:33 PM
-
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines
These babies apparently died a long time ago and there hasn't been a need to create new cell lines from more aborted babies since then but I still find this fact disturbing.
-
yeh..doesn't sound very ethical.
-
They did not abort a fetus in order to get cells!
Someone else got an abortion of their own volition like many thousands of people do each year (or perhaps it was a miscarriage - they do not specify. Please note that not every abortion is induced, many are also spontaneous and involuntary). Then doctors harvested cells from the fetus, instead of letting it all be thrown in the trash, and saved countless lives. One man's trash is another man's treasure. It's the American dream ... or something like that.
-
I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose. And I know that is a big sticking point here. And a lot of religious people will disagree. But Israel's survival over rides this stiicking point with me, so I just set this abortion point aside the best I can, and support the Kahanists for other reasons.
-
I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose. And I know that is a big sticking point here. And a lot of religious people will disagree. But Israel's survival over rides this stiicking point with me, so I just set this abortion point aside the best I can, and support the Kahanists for other reasons.
You think murder is a choice? I guess Casey Anthoney just had a late abortion...
And Israel will not survive if it doesn't follow the will of Hashem. In the end abortion will lead to national destruction...
I also support a womans right to choose. She has a right to choose to use birth control or not have intimate relations which will result in pregnancy. I mean we are sophisticated enough to know how a woman gets pregnant, aren't we? Why do you have to engage in murder just to have a good time?
-
You think murder is a choice? I guess Casey Anthoney just had a late abortion...
And Israel will not survive if it doesn't follow the will of Hashem. In the end abortion will lead to national destruction...
I also support a womans right to choose. She has a right to choose to use birth control or not have intimate relations which will result in pregnancy. I mean we are sophisticated enough to know how a woman gets pregnant, aren't we? Why do you have to engage in murder just to have a good time?
Well I know some people who do engage in murder to have a good time ;D
But anyway your right, Jews certainly mustn't abort. There are too few of them as it is. Jews need to get busy, in various ways.
Oh yeah, cells from dead babies, bit creepy.
-
I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose. And I know that is a big sticking point here. And a lot of religious people will disagree. But Israel's survival over rides this stiicking point with me, so I just set this abortion point aside the best I can, and support the Kahanists for other reasons.
How can Israel survive if Jews don't start to outbreed the Arabs in our midst? All the abortions are literally killing off our people like Hitler did when he murdered our babies.
-
You think murder is a choice?
He didn't say murder, actually. He said abortion.
I find it odd you equate the two when the Torah DOES NOT.
-
He didn't say murder, actually. He said abortion.
I find it odd you equate the two when the Torah DOES NOT.
The Torah allows abortion only in cases of a threat to the mothers life. The Torah is pro-life, if you have not noticed. This is why the Torah says that saving life is more important than doing Mitzvahs. Im sure you know this.
I say murder because todays generation has no respect for life. They consider it 'choice' to terminate a life. And I know what the Torah says concerning when life begins. I have read and learned a lot concerning this question.
The concept of the value of life is so very important for Jews and for righteous gentiles that this is why the command to not murder (#6) is the couple for the first statement of the Aseret HaDibrot which is "I am Hashem". So while there is a technical difference, and you are correct that the Torah does not consider abortion equal to murder, in todays world I see a very close relationship between casual abortions and murder. And as I pointed to the Casey Anthony case for an example, she would rather party and indulge in physical pleasure while her little girl was suffocating in the trunk of her car. While talking with friends the other day we remarked how this should be considered a 'very late term abortion'.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2917/jewish/The-First-Commandment.htm
The Midrash explains the correlations of each of these five sets, but for starters, we'll look at the connection between Commandments #1 and #6. Why is "Do not kill" the flip side of "I am the L‑rd your G‑d"? Because, say the Sages, to murder a fellow man is to murder G‑d:
What is this analogous to? To a king of flesh and blood who entered a country and put up portraits of himself, and made statues of himself, and minted coins with his image. After a while, the people of the country overturned his portraits, broke his statues and invalidated his coins, thereby reducing the image of the king. So, too, one who sheds blood reduces the image of the King, as it is written (Genesis 9:6): "One who spills a man's blood... for in the image of G‑d He made man."
Now there are murderers who say they believe in G‑d. And there are people who are dead-set against murder who claim not to believe in a higher power. They're both wrong.
-
The Torah allows abortion only in cases of a threat to the mothers life. etc etc
Yeah, I'm aware of the facts, but are you? The fact is, Torah does not equate abortion with a capital crime, whereas murder is. When a man bumps a pregnant woman and negligently kills her fetus, he is liable to monetary damages (a civil crime), NOT the death penalty, because the fetus is not yet a life before it's born.
The Torah is pro-life, if you have not noticed. This is why the Torah says that saving life is more important than doing Mitzvahs. Im sure you know this.
Yes.
I say murder because todays generation has no respect for life. They consider it 'choice' to terminate a life. And I know what the Torah says concerning when life begins. I have read and learned a lot concerning this question.
Today's generations certainly may be quite foolhardy and immoral, but nonetheless, choosing to have an abortion is not terminating "life" because the fetus is not yet a life. Even though it is wrong to do so.
-
They did not abort a fetus in order to get cells!
Someone else got an abortion of their own volition like many thousands of people do each year (or perhaps it was a miscarriage - they do not specify. Please note that not every abortion is induced, many are also spontaneous and involuntary). Then doctors harvested cells from the fetus, instead of letting it all be thrown in the trash, and saved countless lives. One man's trash is another man's treasure. It's the American dream ... or something like that.
Yes all this is in the article. The point was that it did come from babies that were aborted originally. They weren't aborted for the purpose of producing these cell lines though.
-
I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose. And I know that is a big sticking point here.
Murder does tend to rub people the wrong way.
And a lot of religious people will disagree.
Anyone with any sense of morals should agree that a baby shouldn't be killed.
But Israel's survival over rides this stiicking point with me, so I just set this abortion point aside the best I can, and support the Kahanists for other reasons.
I think one reason among others that Israel has the trouble it's been having with its enemies is that it allows people in Israel to get abortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel#Circumstances_under_which_abortion_is_legal
-
I also support a womans right to choose. She has a right to choose to use birth control or not have intimate relations which will result in pregnancy. I mean we are sophisticated enough to know how a woman gets pregnant, aren't we? Why do you have to engage in murder just to have a good time?
Very well said Muman
-
There should be no individual right to abortion. It must be banned as a general rule and should be exceptionally allowed only in three cases :
1) rape
2) clearly identified risk of serious physical or mental defect
3) the woman's life in danger
This is a very liberal view - all three exceptions are debatable. Exception 1 is questionable : it's not the child's fault if he/she was conceived as a result of a rape and why should he/she bear the consequences ? Exception 2 is also questionable as some form of eugenism. Any human interference is extremely problematic, actually.
As for having children and raising them the best way you can, it is a fundamental responsibility and moral obligation for everyone. Deciding you won't have children because you don't want to is something extremely selfish, irresponsible and disrespectful of G-d.
-
I am pro choice for early term abortions. I don't think it is possible to violate the human rights of something that resembles a tadpole.
-
I am pro choice for early term abortions. I don't think it is possible to violate the human rights of something that resembles a tadpole.
Your comment reflects contempt for human life. You were once that "tadpole" and now look what you have become.
It should not be any individual's prerogative to decide who should live and who should not. Life is a gift, a blessing.
-
Your comment reflects contempt for human life. You were once that "tadpole" and now look what you have become.
It should not be any individual's prerogative to decide who should live and who should not. Life is a gift, a blessing.
So what if I had been aborted when I was still a "tadpole", I wouldn't mind, since I would have no mind. I don't have contempt to human life nor to potential human life. And I don't think life is a gift nor a blessing. To live is to suffer. It's better to have never been alive than to live, suffer, and die.
-
So what if I had been aborted when I was still a "tadpole", I wouldn't mind, since I would have no mind. I don't have contempt to human life nor to potential human life. And I don't think life is a gift nor a blessing. To live is to suffer. It's better to have never been alive than to live, suffer, and die.
That is a very, very un-Jewish sentiment. Judaism loves life and this is why we are different than the muslim animals... Suffering is a part of life and it is not bad, it is a part of the plan to purify our souls.
-
There should be no individual right to abortion. It must be banned as a general rule and should be exceptionally allowed only in three cases :
1) rape
2) clearly identified risk of serious physical or mental defect
3) the woman's life in danger
1 it's not the baby's fault the father did something horrible, they are their own person and they shouldn't be murdered for someone else's sin.
2 Disabled people are people too just the same as anyone else. You think that someone with a physical disability doesn't have the same right to live as someone else, or that someone with a mental disability is somehow less of a person? That's very, very bad thinking.
3. This is the one I agree with you on
-
This article from aish.com discusses the relevant issues from the Jewish perspective:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
Abortion in Jewish Law
by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.
The traditional Jewish view does not fit conveniently into the major "camps" in the current debate.
As abortion resurfaces as a political issue in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, it is worthwhile to investigate the Jewish approach to the issue. The traditional Jewish view of abortion does not fit conveniently into any of the major "camps" in the current American abortion debate. We neither ban abortion completely, nor do we allow indiscriminate abortion "on demand."
A woman may feel that until the fetus is born, it is a part of her body, and therefore she retains the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Does Judaism recognize a right to "choose" abortion? In what situations does Jewish law sanction abortion?
To gain a clear understanding of when abortion is permitted (or even required) and when it is forbidden requires an appreciation of certain nuances of halacha (Jewish law) which govern the status of the fetus.1
The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being -- but not quite.2 In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus. But while it would seem obvious that Judaism holds accountable one who purposefully causes a woman to miscarry, sanctions are even placed upon one who strikes a pregnant woman causing an unintentional miscarriage.3 That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.
As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer6 after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna,7 if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head or most of its body has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are both pursuing each other.
It is important to point out that the reason that the life of the fetus is subordinate to the mother is because the fetus is the cause of the mother's life-threatening condition, whether directly (e.g. due to toxemia, placenta previa, or breach position) or indirectly (e.g. exacerbation of underlying diabetes, kidney disease, or hypertension).8 A fetus may not be aborted to save the life of any other person whose life is not directly threatened by the fetus, such as use of fetal organs for transplant.
Judaism recognizes psychiatric as well as physical factors in evaluating the potential threat that the fetus poses to the mother. However, the danger posed by the fetus (whether physical or emotional) must be both probable and substantial to justify abortion.9 The degree of mental illness that must be present to justify termination of a pregnancy has been widely debated by rabbinic scholars,10 without a clear consensus of opinion regarding the exact criteria for permitting abortion in such instances.11 Nevertheless, all agree that were a pregnancy to causes a woman to become truly suicidal, there would be grounds for abortion.12 However, several modern rabbinical experts ruled that since pregnancy-induced and post-partum depressions are treatable, abortion is not warranted.13
As a rule, Jewish law does not assign relative values to different lives. Therefore, almost most major poskim (Rabbis qualified to decide matters of Jewish law) forbid abortion in cases of abnormalities or deformities found in a fetus. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one the greatest poskim of the past century, rules that even amniocentesis is forbidden if it is performed only to evaluate for birth defects for which the parents might request an abortion. Nevertheless, a test may be performed if a permitted action may result, such as performance of amniocentesis or drawing alpha-fetoprotein levels for improved peripartum or postpartum medical management.
While most poskim forbid abortion for "defective" fetuses, Rabbi Eliezar Yehuda Waldenberg is a notable exception. Rabbi Waldenberg allows first trimester abortion of a fetus that would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the seventh month of gestation.14 The rabbinic experts also discuss the permissibility of abortion for mothers with German measles and babies with prenatal confirmed Down syndrome.
There is a difference of opinion regarding abortion for adultery or in other cases of impregnation from a relationship with someone Biblically forbidden. In cases of rape and incest, a key issue would be the emotional toll exacted from the mother in carrying the fetus to term. In cases of rape, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach allows the woman to use methods which prevent pregnancy after intercourse.15 The same analysis used in other cases of emotional harm might be applied here. Cases of adultery interject additional considerations into the debate, with rulings ranging from prohibition to it being a mitzvah to abort.16
I have attempted to distill the essence of the traditional Jewish approach to abortion. Nevertheless, every woman's case is unique and special, and the parameters determining the permissibility of abortion within halacha are subtle and complex. It is crucial to remember that when faced with an actual patient, a competent halachic authority must be consulted in every case.
-
1 it's not the baby's fault the father did something horrible, they are their own person and they shouldn't be murdered for someone else's sin.
2 Disabled people are people too just the same as anyone else. You think that someone with a physical disability doesn't have the same right to live as someone else, or that someone with a mental disability is somehow less of a person? That's very, very bad thinking.
3. This is the one I agree with you on
You must have missed part of my post because I say in it that exceptions 1 and 2 are objectionable on basically the same grounds as you.
-
1 it's not the baby's fault the father did something horrible, they are their own person and they shouldn't be murdered for someone else's sin.
2 Disabled people are people too just the same as anyone else. You think that someone with a physical disability doesn't have the same right to live as someone else, or that someone with a mental disability is somehow less of a person? That's very, very bad thinking.
3. This is the one I agree with you on
Also, there is a misunderstanding on your part as far as the rationale for exception 2 is concerned. I never meant that someone with a disability doesn't have the same right to live as someone else or is less of a person. Of course this would be very bad thinking and, frankly, I am a little annoyed that you thought I held such a view. I criticized the possible eugenism associated with this so you should have understood that I meant something different. The reason why I think abortion could be exceptionally allowed when it is known that the child will be affected by a serious disability is because I want to avoid too much suffering for that child. Do you know the pain caused by certain disabilities ? Do you really want to inflict that pain when it can be avoided ? You are not the one who will endure that pain. And you are not the one who will live with the terrible burden of being a parent who watches his/her child suffer endlessly. Think about it.
-
And I don't think life is a gift nor a blessing. To live is to suffer. It's better to have never been alive than to live, suffer, and die.
Zelhar, I am sorry for you if that's the way you feel. Your vision of life looks very pessimistic and nihilistic. I am not blaming you or condemning you. I just hope you are not so depressed as to really think that "It's better to have never been alive than to live" because I appreciate your posts and what they reflect about your personality.
-
Also, there is a misunderstanding on your part as far as the rationale for exception 2 is concerned. I never meant that someone with a disability doesn't have the same right to live as someone else or is less of a person. Of course this would be very bad thinking and, frankly, I am a little annoyed that you thought I held such a view. I criticized the possible eugenism associated with this so you should have understood that I meant something different. The reason why I think abortion could be exceptionally allowed when it is known that the child will be affected by a serious disability is because I want to avoid too much suffering for that child. Do you know the pain caused by certain disabilities ? Do you really want to inflict that pain when it can be avoided ? You are not the one who will endure that pain. And you are not the one who will live with the terrible burden of being a parent who watches his/her child suffer endlessly. Think about it.
Sorry I misunderstood what you said. There are a lot of people who do hold those views but I'm very glad that you don't! Sometimes it's easy to misread things online. I've been misunderstood a lot here and in other places so I hope you won't stay mad at me.
There's a slippery slope when it comes to what you're talking about. What disabilities would you consider to cause too much suffering? I know there are some that are extremely difficult and/or painful for the person and/or family but I'd like to know what you would consider a case where you feel someone would be better off dead. Anybody can become disabled at any time so to say "well YOU don't have to go through it", we don't know that for sure. I hope I won't be disabled but this is something that could happen to anybody at any stage of life.
A lot of people will abort a baby just because they find out that the baby will have short stature or because the baby might have Down syndrome. I think both of these cases are completely unacceptable and those babies should be alive. There are some disabilities that really are difficult to live with but at least if someone is alive that's worth something and there can always be medical advances to make their life easier later if they are able to live.
A lot of the late term abortions were done on babies that had hydrocephalus. Instead of using a C-section to deliver a live baby, the baby was murdered and his or her skull collapsed rather than saving the baby and trying to drain off the fluid and save them.
-
Sorry I misunderstood what you said. There are a lot of people who do hold those views but I'm very glad that you don't! Sometimes it's easy to misread things online. I've been misunderstood a lot here and in other places so I hope you won't stay mad at me.
There's a slippery slope when it comes to what you're talking about. What disabilities would you consider to cause too much suffering? I know there are some that are extremely difficult and/or painful for the person and/or family but I'd like to know what you would consider a case where you feel someone would be better off dead. Anybody can become disabled at any time so to say "well YOU don't have to go through it", we don't know that for sure. I hope I won't be disabled but this is something that could happen to anybody at any stage of life.
A lot of people will abort a baby just because they find out that the baby will have short stature or because the baby might have Down syndrome. I think both of these cases are completely unacceptable and those babies should be alive. There are some disabilities that really are difficult to live with but at least if someone is alive that's worth something and there can always be medical advances to make their life easier later if they are able to live.
A lot of the late term abortions were done on babies that had hydrocephalus. Instead of using a C-section to deliver a live baby, the baby was murdered and his or her skull collapsed rather than saving the baby and trying to drain off the fluid and save them.
No problem Rubystars. There was a misunderstanding mostly because of me, because I was too terse and I didn't explain myself clearly. I am glad you now know that my position on this important issue is very close to yours.
I was thinking about things like congenital myopathies or inborn defects in the immune system such as primary immunodeficiency. That is, diseases that are inevitable, painful and with no known cure. I also find certain forms of intellectual disabilities very cruel, especially those that will prevent the child from socializing and that will cause enormous emotional distress.
But I completely agree that it's a slippery slope. Like you, I consider short stature, for example, as a totally unacceptable motive. I am essentially very anti-abortion.
-
For those who are criticizing Zelhar: Don't the chachamim say that it is better to never have been born than to live and sin and get punished for it (and thus suffer, in this world and/or the next)?
I'm pretty sure that was a point of contention amongst the chachamim and the Talmud actually comes out on the side of the opinion above. It would seem both points of view are valid.
-
There should be no individual right to abortion. It must be banned as a general rule and should be exceptionally allowed only in three cases :
1) rape
2) clearly identified risk of serious physical or mental defect
3) the woman's life in danger
This is a very liberal view - all three exceptions are debatable. Exception 1 is questionable : it's not the child's fault if he/she was conceived as a result of a rape and why should he/she bear the consequences ? Exception 2 is also questionable as some form of eugenism. Any human interference is extremely problematic, actually.
As for having children and raising them the best way you can, it is a fundamental responsibility and moral obligation for everyone. Deciding you won't have children because you don't want to is something extremely selfish, irresponsible and disrespectful of G-d.
#3 is definitely allowable according to the Torah.. The other two, according to the Rabbis is not allowed.
Some question when life actually begins. Once there is fertilization, the cells multiply very rapidly.
Plan B is a medication taken to prevent fertilization. Therefore, it is not a morning after pill. For those who have been raped, they should go on this immediately, in my opinion, unless they want to have a child through that rape.
As far as a birth defect, from a non religious point of view, it is a difficult decision to make. But from a religious point of view, cut and dry, it's a no no to abort that fetus. I guess it depends on how much faith one has in Gd to accept that He gives that type of child to someone in that condition when it is born. It is still an innocent child and the idea that "he will suffer throughout his life" is not an acceptable excuse to terminate a pregnancy. If that was ok, then so would euthenasia of old people...and we know that is wrong...and if that's wrong, so is ending a pregnancy of a child with a birth defect.
-
For those who are criticizing Zelhar: Don't the chachamim say that it is better to never have been born than to live and sin and get punished for it (and thus suffer, in this world and/or the next)?
I'm pretty sure that was a point of contention amongst the chachamim and the Talmud actually comes out on the side of the opinion above. It would seem both points of view are valid.
I knew someone would bring this up. It is true what you said that there is an argument concerning this question. I believe this comes from the Pirkie Avot {Ethics of the Fathers}...
I found this which explains some of this issue:
http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48937002.html?mobile=yes&c=y
To Never have Been Born: Ethics of the Fathers, 3:17
Taking the odds on eternal life.
by Rabbi Yonason Goldson
Rabbi Akiva used to say: Beloved is man, for he was created in the image of God. It indicates a greater love that it was made known to him that he was created in the image of God, as it is said, "For in the image of God did He make man" (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are the Children of Israel for they are called children of the Lord. It is indicative of a greater love that it was made known to them that they are called children of the Lord, as it is said, "You are children to the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved is Israel that they were given a precious utensil (the Torah). It is a greater love that it was made known to them that they were given a precious utensil, as it is said, "For I have given you a good possession; do not forsake My Torah" (Proverbs 4:2). Ethics of the Fathers, 3:18
The Talmud records an astonishing debate between the students of Shammai and the students of Hillel. The scholars of the Talmudic academy of Shammai (Beis Shammai) asserted that man would have been better off had he never been born. Beis Hillel argued, insisting that man was better off for having been born.
Although the Talmud records literally hundreds of arguments between the scholars of the two academies, this particular dispute ended in an unusual resolution. After two-and-a-half years, Beis Hillel conceded the debate and accepted Beis Shammai's position that man would indeed have been better off had he never been born.
It is patently impossible to accept either Beis Shammai's opinion or Beis Hillel's agreement at face value. As Rabbi Akiva teaches in our mishna, there is no greater testimony than human existence to the Almighty's love for mankind. Indeed, by definition, anything God does is ultimately what is best for man. If so, what could the students of the two academies have meant?
THE FLIP OF A COIN
It's hard to imagine anyone making it through high school without hearing the following question: If a coin-toss yields ten consecutive results of "heads," what are the odds the next toss will also be heads?
The most common response among the uninitiated is one chance in ten. A more sophisticated wrong answer would compute the odds of eleven consecutive coin-tosses landing heads-up at one chance in 211, or 2048. By high school, however, most of us know that, regardless of prior results, the odds on any given toss are even money (assuming a fair coin).
These two ways of looking at the same case, either as an isolated event or as part of a sequence, provide a possible insight into the opinion of Beis Shammai. If the odds of a single event can be correctly computed as simultaneously 50% and 0.05%, perhaps Beis Shammai's opinion is not inconsistent with Rabbi Akiva's teaching after all.
ALL OR NOTHING
Imagine that you possessed a diamond of inestimable value. Would you wager such a treasure on the toss of a coin for the chance of gaining an even more valuable jewel? Or would you consider it foolhardy to risk all you have for the chance to double or triple wealth already beyond measure?
This illustrates the reasoning of Beis Shammai, who understood that the Almighty placed man in this world to give him the opportunity to earn his reward in the World to Come. Rather than simply bestowing upon mankind the infinite pleasure of eternal life, God devised the means by which man could earn paradise, so that his eternal reward would not be tarnished by the shame of being undeserved.
However, Beis Shammai reckoned that even an imperfect paradise would offer such unimaginable pleasure that to risk losing it all for possibility of gaining more was a fool's wager. True, man could acquire a better portion of in the World to Come. But the chances of losing everything were too high to justify such a gamble. Better off to have never been born into the world of physical existence; better to retain a sure thing, albeit imperfect, than to risk more and end up with nothing.
The students of Hillel, however, looked at the matter differently. True, the fate of a single individual might be compared to the flip of a single coin. However, in His omniscience and omnibenevolence the Almighty would never have instituted a system designed to benefit mankind if mankind as a whole would not ultimately benefit. In the grand scheme of things, God knew that the gamble was worthwhile, that the result depended not on the toss of a fair coin but of a coin weighted, over the long run, in man's favor. Over the span of human history, the majority of mankind would earn a better portion and only a minority would lose.
THE WEIGHTED COIN
So why did the students of Beis Hillel eventually come around to Beis Shammai's way of thinking? And how could either, no matter how compelling the logic of the argument, have ever suggested that God's plan was not in mankind's best interest?
In any matter of perspective, an awareness of risk is essential to success. However great the profit one stands to gain may be, a single careless act can cause the loss not only of potential profit but of all one has invested. And so Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel eventually agreed concerning the necessity of maintaining constant focus on the consequences of miscalculation. To earn eternal reward takes a lifetime. To lose it requires only a moment.
In contrast, Rabbi Akiva chose to emphasize on the positive. Where Beis Shammai, and ultimately Beis Hillel, chose to focus on the consequences of transgression to guide us along the straight path, Rabbi Akiva pointed to the Almighty's creation of mankind as the unparalleled expression of unconditional love. Moreover, God did not merely create man in the way he created all living things, but fashioned man in His own image, combining within man's physical exterior a uniquely spiritual and Godlike soul. And even more, God conveyed to mankind the knowledge of its own uniqueness, so that we might appreciate our own special destiny and know that, by entering into the conflict between the physical and the spiritual, we can prevail.
But still that is not all. The Almighty provided mankind not only with a spiritual nature and an awareness of that nature, but with an indispensable tool with which to succeed in his spiritual mission. God revealed to mankind His Will.
For all the peoples of the earth, the Divine Will takes the form of the Seven Noahide Laws, the basic prescription for human morality that includes prohibitions against murder, theft, idolatry, sexual immorality, taking God's name in vain, and cruelty to animals, as well as the establishment of a justice system to enforce them.
For the Jewish people, however, the Divine Will is expressed in the form of the Torah, the 248 positive commandments and 365 prohibitions that guide the Jew in the daily quest of elevating his physical nature to a level of spirituality.
There is no greater indication of God's love than the Torah He provided us to assure our victory in the battle of the soul. No matter how great the odds against us may seem, the Torah weights every toss of the coin in our favor. With the Torah to guide us, and with sincere effort, Rabbi Akiva assures us that we cannot fail.
-
Also here is some more about this topic {concerning whether it is better to not be born}:
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/beacons-on-the-talmud-sea/01.htm
To Be, Or Not To Be
Similar concepts apply with regard to the purpose of the creation of man. Our Sages state:[47]
For two and a half years, there was a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. These (the School of Shammai)[48] would say: "It is better for a person not to have been born than to have been born." And these (the School of Hillel) would say: "It is better for a person to have been born than not to have been born."
The School of Shammai, who highlights the potential, says that it is better for a person not to have been born, because the potential for personal fulfillment already exists in the spiritual realms. A person's existence in this world is - at its best - merely an expression of his spiritual potential. This is essential to fulfill G-d's purpose in creation, but "for a person," i.e., from his own individual standpoint, it is preferable that he not have been created.
The School of Hillel, who focuses on actual expression, maintains that it is through the descent into this world that a soul reaches the heights of fulfillment. For the observance of the Torah and its mitzvos on this material plane lifts a person to a level above its previous rung in the spiritual realms. Therefore, it is preferable for the person to have been born.
This leads to a further point. Since the School of Shammai puts the emphasis on G-d's desire, and not man's, man's Divine service is characterized by self-nullification, the negation of his own will. As such, it is "better for a person not to have been born."
The School of Hillel, by contrast, sees man's fulfillment as a personal goal. G-d's intent in creation, the establishment of a dwelling in this material world, is not merely an objective to which we should strive, but one which should be internalized within our own selves. And as this motive blossoms into fulfillment, every person can perceive its benefits; his existence is thus "better for him."
-
I am pro choice for early term abortions. I don't think it is possible to violate the human rights of something that resembles a tadpole.
I used to think this...but once you are married (if you aren't already) and have a wife (if you don't have one already) and she's pregnant (if you haven't experienced that), and hear that heart beat as it is a tadpole, you will think the opposite.
Tadpole or not, it's living and it's beautiful. I'm against terminating that unless of course, the mother's life is in danger.
-
I disagree that it is better to have never been born so that one couldn't sin.
It is better to have been born to exercise free will to do what's righteous and have faith in Gd than to have never been born at all.
-
I used to think this...but once you are married (if you aren't already) and have a wife (if you don't have one already) and she's pregnant (if you haven't experienced that), and hear that heart beat as it is a tadpole, you will think the opposite.
Tadpole or not, it's living and it's beautiful. I'm against terminating that unless of course, the mother's life is in danger.
You are describing a situation of a couple expecting a baby. And it is very good and idyllic. There are however other situations. You know how many unwanted babies there are in the world. The world is so full of disease, sickness, disasters, wars, exploitation, hunger, poverty, negligence, cruelty and what not. So I think if people are going to have babies they better be able and willing to protect them and provide for them.
Also, Jewish halacha don't consider the embryo in the first 40 days phase as a human. It's basically permissible to abort during this phase if you have good enough reasons.
-
Don't the chachamim say that it is better to never have been born than to live and sin and get punished for it
We don't know which of any particular unborn child is headed for punishment or not. Also, the "better" in that saying describes the person born and not the person who gives life or takes life from that person, and it does not seem logical to apply that statement to supporting abortion.
In other words, it may be better for a person not to be born and then to have bad stuff happen to them, but that does not mean the person doing something bad against them (like killing them), that it is better for them, that their act is approved of!
Analogy: a person suffering great, horrible pain from cancer and has no living relatives or friends, is barely surviving on the street, is quickly stabbed to death at a convenience store robbery and thus put out of his misery that was dragging on -- just because we can say it was perhaps better for that person to have been stabbed, does not mean that the murderer's act (which more likely is of entirely selfish motives) is therefore approved of.
Now there may be other abortion-supportive arguments by "the chachamim" (I'm not Jewish, so have not idea about that) -- all of which I reject, as I am 100% anti-abortion based on what the Bible says-- but this saying of theirs (which I totally approve of for common sense reasons) imo doesn't logically support it.
-
All of you can criticize abortion all day and night, and on weekends. It won't make a bit of difference. People who want them, will get them.