JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Israel Chai on March 14, 2014, 03:04:15 AM
-
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/03/10/this-is-so-hard-oh-god-its-so-hard-nurses-tell-of-aborted-babies-born-alive/
April 23, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) – Often when a baby is born alive during an abortion procedure, the child is kept in the abortion clinic until he or she dies.
Note: This is Part 3 of a series about how babies are born alive during abortion procedures:
Part I: ‘This baby is alive!’: the heartbreaking story of Baby Hope
Part II: ‘That’s not a baby. That’s an abortion!’: clinic workers describe babies born alive
April 23, 2013 (LiveActionNews.org) - Often when a baby is born alive during an abortion procedure, the child is kept in the abortion clinic until he or she dies. In rare cases, the abortionist himself takes action to kill the baby. But sometimes the baby is transferred to a hospital, where he can be given medical care. Unfortunately, it is the policy of many hospitals simply to allow these babies to die.
Nurse Kathleen Malloy, from Jacksonville, Florida, witnessed the death of one baby who was born after a saline abortion and transferred to her hospital. Melanie Green of Last Days Ministries quoted Malloy in her pamphlet “Children: Things We Throw Away?“ Malloy tells her story:
I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet – a crying, perfectly formed baby – but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion.
This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery – they didn’t even bother to cover her.
I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick – not a place to kill.
While doctors will go to extraordinary lengths to save the lives of premature babies such as these, babies born alive during abortions at the same age are left to die.
I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!
A saline abortion is performed by injecting the caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid that surrounds an unborn baby in the second trimester. The baby breathes in the fluid, which burns her lungs and scorches her skin, causing her to die within several hours. The mother then goes through labor to give birth to the dead baby. This type of abortion is seldom performed today because it led to so many live births and because it was dangerous to women; it had the potential to cause severe damage to the woman’s body if the saline was injected into her bloodstream. A similar procedure where poison is injected into the baby’s heart, or, in some cases, the amniotic fluid, still takes place today and is used in the late second and third trimesters.
The baby Malloy watched die never had a name and never had a chance to live. In a similar situation, Gianna Jessen, who was also aborted by the saline method, was given medical care and survived. She is now a pro-life activist, and her website can be found here.
A 2002 article in The Journal of Clinical Nursing seems to indicate that nurses encounter babies born alive after abortions with some frequency. According to the article:
In the case of late termination, the death of the fetus before delivery, though usual, is not inevitable except in rare cases of extreme physical abnormality[.] … At times the fetus will actually attempt to breathe or move its limbs, which makes the experience extremely distressing for nurses. Also, whereas the woman will probably go through this process once in her lifetime, nurses may go through it several times a year or even in the same week. (1)
Click "like" if you want to end abortion!
The article quotes author and lecturer Annette D. Huntington, BN, Ph.D. saying that abortion live births are a “regular occurrence.”
Another nurse who found herself in the terrible position of caring for an aborted baby told her story in the newsletter of Friendship Pregnancy Center (now called Women’s First Choice Center) in Morristown, New Jersey. Her story, which can be read in its entirety here, is heartbreaking. On the night the aborted baby came in, three premature babies from a nearby hospital were being taken care of. Two of the three were in danger of dying, and doctors struggled to save their lives. While the doctors were engaged in the struggle to help these two wanted babies, the aborted baby was brought in:
The nurse from Labor and Delivery walked into our unit carrying a blanket and stating “This is a prostaglandin abortion. He has a heartbeat so we brought him over.” The baby was placed under a radiant warmer and I was told the rest of the facts. The gestational age of the baby was given to be 23 weeks by ultrasound. The mother had cancer and had received chemotherapy treatments before discovering that she was pregnant. The parents had been told that their baby would be horribly deformed because of the chemotherapy.
I looked at the baby boy lying before me, and saw that from all appearances he was perfect. He had a good strong heartbeat. I could tell this without using a stethoscope because I could see his chest moving in sync with his heart rate. With a stethoscope I heard a heart pumping strongly. I look at his size and his skin — he definitely looked more mature than 23 weeks. He was weighed and I discovered that he was 900 grams, almost two pounds. This was almost twice the weight of some babies we have been able to save. A doctor was summoned. When she arrived the baby started moving his tiny arms and legs flailing. He started trying to gasp, but was unable to get air into his lungs. His whole body shuddered with his efforts to breathe. We were joined by a neonatalist and I pleaded with both doctors saying, “The baby is viable — look at his size, look at his skin — he looks much older than 23 weeks.”
It was a horrible moment as each of us wrestled with our own ethical standards. I argued that we should make an attempt to resuscitate him, to get him breathing. The resident doctor told me, “This is an abortion. We have no right to interfere.” The specialist, who had the responsibility for the decision, was wringing his hands and quietly saying, “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.” In the end, I lost. We were not going to try to resuscitate this baby. So, I did the only thing I could do. Dipping my index finger into sterile water and placing it on his head, I baptized the child. Then I wrapped him in blankets to keep him warm, and held him. These were the only measures I could take comfort the baby under the circumstances, no matter how much I wanted to do more. I held this little boy, who was still gasping for breath, trying to stay alive on his own. As the tears flowed down my face, I pray to God that he would take this child into his care, and that he would forgive me for my own part in his death. After a while, he stopped gasping. His heart continued to beat, but the beating became slower and weaker until it finally stopped. He was gone.
Ironically, all the while the nurse was holding the dying aborted child, doctors were struggling to save the life of another premature (but wanted) child in the very same room, less than five feet away. Sadly, this baby died as well – but she was given every possible medical treatment, while the aborted baby was completely ignored.
Another nurse, Joan S. Smith, told the following story:
It was a night I’ll never forget. It was 11 pm and my colleague Karen and I “scrubbed in” at the beginning of our shift in the Special Care Nursery of a large teaching hospital….Without warning, a harried nurse rushed into the doorway.
Her white uniform seemed out of place in the area of the hospital where only surgical scrubs are worn.
“Here, take this,” she said, thrusting into my hands a small silver specimen pan covered with a paper towel.
“What is it?” I asked, realizing by the look on her face that something was very wrong.
“It’s an abortion at 22 weeks gestation, delivered on our floor. But it’s alive,” she explained, then turned on her heel and was gone. I removed the paper towel to see the perfectly formed body of a baby boy curled up in the cold metal pan….Karen came over to help. “This happens every so often,” she explained sadly. She had trained at the hospital and worked there for over 15 years.
[After a doctor Joan called simply told her to do nothing but fill in the time of death for the baby] Stoking his tiny arm, I tried to sort out my jumble of emotions. I felt powerless, angry, and overwhelmed by sadness. How could our medical system be so full of ironies? Here I was surrounded by medical technology, which was of no avail to this tiny child. I wondered if the parents even were told that their son had been admitted to the hospital as a live birth with footprints taken, and identification number and band given, a physician notified of his birth- yet all of this merely an unpredicted complication of a routine abortion. It took nearly four hours until that tiny heart slowed to a stop. With tears in my eyes, I wrapped his body for the morgue. This was all of a life this child would ever know. He would never know the warmth of a mother’s embrace. No one would ever celebrate his birth. He would never even be given a name.
It is not unheard of for a baby born at 22-23 weeks to survive with medical treatment. Little Amillia Taylor was born at just 21 weeks and six days and weighed less than 10 ounces. She survived and is a healthy toddler today. Amillia’s mother actually had to lie to get the doctors to treat her baby – they had a policy of not treating children born before 23 weeks.
A German baby born at 21 weeks and five days also survived. Her story can be found here. The article also cites the example of a Canadian baby who was born before 22 weeks and survived.
Cases of late-term abortions blur the line between abortion and infanticide. Clearly, when a baby can survive on its own, even for short while, it becomes obvious that abortion is the killing of a human being. In reality, life is a continuum from conception to natural death – although babies aborted at later stages of development are more fully developed, abortion is murder from the very beginning. But stories of babies born alive and then denied medical care are heart-wrenching and a terrible indictment of our society, which permits such atrocities.
-
This is the most horrible thing and nobody in power is really doing anything to stop it.
-
Didn't read the (long) article, but in Halacha this is NOT true, certainly not for Jews. Abortion can be wrong, abortion can sometimes even be right (when life on mother is in danger for example), but its NOT murder.
-
Didn't read the (long) article, but in Halacha this is NOT true, certainly not for Jews. Abortion can be wrong, abortion can sometimes even be right (when life on mother is in danger for example), but its NOT murder.
yeah it is.
-
Didn't read the (long) article, but in Halacha this is NOT true, certainly not for Jews. Abortion can be wrong, abortion can sometimes even be right (when life on mother is in danger for example), but its NOT murder.
It IS murder if the baby is born alive after the abortion and then they just let it die without trying to save it.
-
Chaim has spoken about this several times. Abortion is only permitted in medical emergencies--real threats to the mother's life.
-
In cases that the baby is a threat to the mothers life it is permitted, actually commanded, to kill the baby to save the mothers life.
This is the one case where abortion is not murder.... The unborn baby is considered a Rodef (pursuer) who is coming to kill the mother...
-
The accidental killing of the baby is also not considered murder.
See the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:22) and this law:
22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].
It seems clearly that if the unborn baby dies due to this 'quarrel' then the man who struck her is only responsible for paying restitution...
See Rashis comments on this:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=15564&showrashi=true&p=complete
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
וכי ינצו אנשים: זה עם זה, ונתכוין להכות את חבירו והכה את האשה:
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
ונגפו: אין נגיפה אלא לשון דחיפה והכאה, כמו (תהלים צא יב) פן תגוף באבן רגלך, (ירמיה יג טז) ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, (ישעיה ח יד) ולאבן נגף:
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
ולא יהיה אסון: באשה:
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
ענוש יענש: לשלם דמי ולדות לבעל שמין אותה, כמה היתה ראויה למכר בשוק להעלות בדמיה בשביל הריונה:
he shall surely be punished: Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]
ענוש יענש: יגבו ממון ממנו, כמו (דברים כב יט) וענשו אותו מאה כסף:
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
כאשר ישית עליו וגו': כשיתבנעו הבעל בבית דין להשית עליו עונש על כך:
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
ונתן: המכה דמי ולדות:
according to the judges: Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]
-
Now that I read the original article I must admit that killing a baby which has been born most certainly is murder. That is not abortion...
-
I can't read the whole thing. It's just way too painful. When God destroyed Israel for the first time, it was partly because the Jews (the very people that God chose to make a covenant with, turned their backs on God and started keeping idols like the nations did. The worst thing they did, was just as the nations did, the Jews started sacrificing their innocent children to please the idols they had kept. I soud woulde lilne to explain to me what exactly is the difference between child sacrifice and abortion. The only thing I can come up with is that child sacrifice was done in God's name, whereas abortion is not. Despite that one difference, the result is pretty much the same: murdered children. What a nightmare.
-
When abortion becomes a form of birth control then it is evil... People having unprotected sex, underaged, and out of marriage is clearly a sin... And to top it off, being so selfish as to create a life only to destroy it, it is un-human.
-
This is what Chaim has said--a baby that is threatening the mother's life is a rodef, even if it is innocent, but in other circumstances it is murder.
-
Didn't read the (long) article, but in Halacha this is NOT true, certainly not for Jews. Abortion can be wrong, abortion can sometimes even be right (when life on mother is in danger for example), but its NOT murder.
Maybe you don't understand because you didn't read the article. I suggest doing so before commenting because there's more to it than a medical procedure that results in a quick death for the baby. It's really not that long. I read it in a few minutes.
-
It IS murder if they baby is born alive after the abortion and then they just it die without trying to save it.
True, once the baby is out (majority of head that is), it is 100% a human being. Anyone hurting it from this point on EVEN to save the mother's life is a murderer and is judged as such.
-
True, once the baby is out (majority of head that is), it is 100% a human being. Anyone hurting it from this point on EVEN to save the mother's life is a murderer and is judged as such.
When you get a the top of the head it's ok to stab it yay. You're messed up in the head if you think that. How would you kill it purposefully with the tip of its head out that's not murder?
-
When you get a the top of the head it's ok to stab it yay. You're messed up in the head if you think that. How would you kill it purposefully with the tip of its head out that's not murder?
Not sure what you meant, but I was saying that a baby is defined as fully human once the majority of the head it out. At that point it would be considered murder to abort the baby even to save the life of the mother. Right before that it still has status of a fetus and it can, actually should be aborted if and when the life of the mother is in danger.
What did I say that seems crazy to you? Its a serious questions discussed in the Talmudh and poskim. This is the Halacha BY ALL opinions (And I challenge you to bring an opinion stating otherwise).
-
Not sure what you meant, but I was saying that a baby is defined as fully human once the majority of the head it out. At that point it would be considered murder to abort the baby even to save the life of the mother. Right before that it still has status of a fetus and it can, actually should be aborted if and when the life of the mother is in danger.
What did I say that seems crazy to you? Its a serious questions discussed in the Talmudh and poskim. This is the Halacha BY ALL opinions (And I challenge you to bring an opinion stating otherwise).
When a minority of the head is out, and you kill it for any reason, you're a murderer.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/s843x403/1897924_715668405131383_2087525010_n.jpg)
-
When a minority of the head is out, and you kill it for any reason, you're a murderer.
According to your "logic", not according to the (true) Hachamim. The Talmudhim, the Rishonim and the poskim. In fact at that stage if you don't abort it and the mother dies as a result, YOU'RE the MURDERER.
And that picture you brought is just stupid and wrong, its another one of those "junk science" crap that ignoramuses say and promote. Not Jermaine to the argument, AT ALL. If the Hachamim said about the scenario of the mother's life being in danger, even a Safek (doubt) of it, the meant and mean it. Its not murder, no matter which way you try to define it and no matter how much you repeat either junk "science" or Halahically invalid LIES.
-
LKZ you want a good example of Junk "Science", here goes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqv0iuiBta8
-
According to your "logic", not according to the (true) Hachamim. The Talmudhim, the Rishonim and the poskim. In fact at that stage if you don't abort it and the mother dies as a result, YOU'RE the MURDERER.
And that picture you brought is just stupid and wrong, its another one of those "junk science" crap that ignoramuses say and promote. Not Jermaine to the argument, AT ALL. If the Hachamim said about the scenario of the mother's life being in danger, even a Safek (doubt) of it, the meant and mean it. Its not murder, no matter which way you try to define it and no matter how much you repeat either junk "science" or Halahically invalid LIES.
You're slipping hard. If you live in the bronze age, mothers die commonly in birth, so you have to abort babies now and then. With technology it's almost never necessary. That's to prove the point that all abortion is murder today, and if the tip of your baby's head is sticking out of your wife, and achmed from your retard video stabs it, he's a murderer.
-
LKZ,
I just did some quick research here and it appears your argument is failing... You suggest that no mothers are dying in childbirth, but according to statistics they are...
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html
Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth?
April 07, 2013 2:45 pm
Kristin Marlowe was seven months pregnant and admitted for a small placental tear at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mo., when she began to complain of a headache. An hour later, she stopped breathing. Strong, healthy and only 20 years old — she died of a stroke.
Her son, Trennon, was delivered by emergency C-section and survived.
“We knew we were going to spend our life together,” said her husband, Nick Marlowe, 22, still reeling from her death last August. “I can tell you right now, if it wasn’t for my kid, I wouldn’t be here.”
The hospital staff is also struggling for answers. Doctors are unsure how a young woman with no risks or obvious signs quickly took such a tragic turn. “How did this happen?” said obstetrics director Dr. David Redfern. “Why did this happen?’
The maternal death rate in the U.S. is creeping upward — to more than double what it was 25 years ago. Systems identifying deaths have improved, so how much the increase can be attributed to risk is uncertain. But experts agree maternal deaths are no longer declining, are underestimated, largely preventable and disproportionately affect certain groups.
“We have not seen a decrease in maternal mortality, and that is worrisome,” said Dr. George Saade, director of maternal-fetal medicine at University of Texas Medical Branch. He said black women were three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy. “These two things are very concerning, particularly in a developed country like the U.S.”
.
.
.
-
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-relatedmortality.htm
Pregnancy-Related Deaths
The death of a woman during pregnancy, at delivery, or soon after delivery is a tragedy for her family and for society as a whole. Sadly, about 650 women die each year in the United States as a result of pregnancy or delivery complications.
During pregnancy, a woman's body goes through many changes. These changes are entrirely normal, but may become very important in case there are complications or problems. A pregnancy-related death is defined as the death of a woman during pregnancy or within one year of the end of pregnancy from a pregnancy complication, a chain of events initiated by pregnancy, or the aggravation of an unrelated condition by the physiologic effects of pregnancy.
-
LKZ,
I just did some quick research here and it appears your argument is failing... You suggest that no mothers are dying in childbirth, but according to statistics they are...
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html
The picture and doctor claim no such thing. Some mothers would die one way or another, and some mothers it wasn't detectable or obvious that the pregnancy would kill them, more develop unexpected complications, and all of those have nothing to do with the argument, the argument is that is is extremely rare that a baby needs to be aborted to save a mother's life.
It's OK to get an abortion to save a life, but that almost never comes up in any circumstance, and the only other argument for abortion is from Tag, that we can stab our babies in the head when the tip is sticking out and it's not murder, and is retarded, so other than that tiny exception to the RULE, all abortion is murder.
-
The picture and doctor claim no such thing. Some mothers would die one way or another, and some mothers it wasn't detectable or obvious that the pregnancy would kill them, more develop unexpected complications, and all of those have nothing to do with the argument, the argument is that is is extremely rare that a baby needs to be aborted to save a mother's life.
It's OK to get an abortion to save a life, but that almost never comes up in any circumstance, and the only other argument for abortion is from Tag, that we can stab our babies in the head when the tip is sticking out and it's not murder, and is retarded, so other than that tiny exception to the RULE, all abortion is murder.
Your going to go with some picture over statistics? And its a government agency on top of that. + we hear of some cases in the news as well.
Now besides life and death, even a Safek of it (of which their is no argument on from any of the poskim, up to the point of birth it isn't only Muttar-allowed, its a MUST) if on the other hand their is abortion not for the life risk of the mother it still doesn't = murder, certainly not for Jews. It is wrong in many cases (can even be considered a grave sin) but its not murder. If you define it as murder, especially in the Halahic sense, then bring something to back up your argument.
+ Certainly if you would consider it murder then the mother and/or doctor would be liable for the death penalty under Beit Din. No such thing exists in this case.
I think that their can be a confusion stemming from goyim doing it and it thus being equated with murder, BUT perhaps it can be equated with theft of which the punishment is the same.
-
Your going to go with some picture over statistics? And its a government agency on top of that. + we hear of some cases in the news as well.
Now besides life and death, even a Safek of it (of which their is no argument on from any of the poskim, up to the point of birth it isn't only Muttar-allowed, its a MUST) if on the other hand their is abortion not for the life risk of the mother it still doesn't = murder, certainly not for Jews. It is wrong in many cases (can even be considered a grave sin) but its not murder. If you define it as murder, especially in the Halahic sense, then bring something to back up your argument.
+ Certainly if you would consider it murder then the mother and/or doctor would be liable for the death penalty under Beit Din. No such thing exists in this case.
I think that their can be a confusion stemming from goyim doing it and it thus being equated with murder, BUT perhaps it can be equated with theft of which the punishment is the same.
Dude, it's getting really annoying to respond to you when you argue against things I never said. Read what I say, and re-read next time, because I'm sick of it.
1. The statistics are correct. I never argued against them. As I responded, they are statistics by Muman responding to a point I never mentioned, being that **************NO*************** mothers die in childbirth, which would almost be as retarded to say as attacking me for saying that after my comment. Make a real response. What the DOCTOR, not me, but the DOCTOR said, is that there were no examples he could find where it was known that an abortion would save the life of the mother.
2. You can show me all the Rabbis in the world that say the opposite (and not all do). I will argue against it still. Your wife is giving birth, and you wait until 2cm of the head are out to stab the baby, you're a murderer.
-
Dude, it's getting really annoying to respond to you when you argue against things I never said. Read what I say, and re-read next time, because I'm sick of it.
1. The statistics are correct. I never argued against them. As I responded, they are statistics by Muman responding to a point I never mentioned, being that **************NO*************** mothers die in childbirth, which would almost be as retarded to say as attacking me for saying that after my comment. Make a real response. What the DOCTOR, not me, but the DOCTOR said, is that there were no examples he could find where it was known that an abortion would save the life of the mother.
2. You can show me all the Rabbis in the world that say the opposite (and not all do). I will argue against it still. Your wife is giving birth, and you wait until 2cm of the head are out to stab the baby, you're a murderer.
So why bring this retarded "doctor" if he is saying something bombastically WRONG in the first place? You brought him to make a point, you were proven otherwise. Get over it.
-
So why bring this retarded "doctor" if he is saying something bombastically WRONG in the first place? You brought him to make a point, you were proven otherwise. Get over it.
(http://www.reallifephilippines.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Implied-Facepalm.jpg)
I'm done.
-
This argument is getting old... And I believe we have covered the topic sufficiently...
But here are some sources where the Jewish view (and halachas) can be learned:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
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
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/sex.htm
Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.
An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until its head has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and is not to be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the head has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/529077/jewish/What-is-the-Torahs-View-on-Abortion.htm
http://www.jewishanswers.org/?p=880
Question: I’m Jewish and against abortion. But, Jewish law teaches abortion is ok. How do I remain Jewish and reconcile Jewish law? This is what I got from another website: “Abortion: Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory. An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. ” I’ve never read the Talmud but if what this author claims is correct – then Judaism permits abortion. And, that’s unacceptable to me in many cases.
Answer: The information you received was accurate, but misleading.
The source is a Mishna (Oholos 7:6), which states that if the baby is threatening the mother’s life, you may abort. Implicit in this teaching, of course, is that in a case where the mother’s life is not threatened, abortion is forbidden. Indeed, even in cases where having the baby will cause significant hardship, financial or otherwise, Jewish law nevertheless does not permit abortion.
You were also correct in that before birth, the status of the unborn fetus is not on par with that of a born child. The basis for that is found in the Torah. In Exodus 21:22-25 the Torah discusses a case where someone strikes a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarry. The punishment is monetary and not capital, and this serves as a source for establishing the status of the fetus. (For further reading, see the Septuagint which translates this passage quite differently than the original Hebrew. This mistranslation implied that a viable fetus does have the status of a person born child. It is also noteworthy that based on this translation, the early church fathers equated abortion with full-fledged murder and canonized this into Christian law.)
Yehoshua Lewis
Question: Thank you, Rabbi Lewis. This is a powerful issue for me. I’ve never been in a situation where a child I fathered was aborted. However, I did lose a son to miscarriage and that was very painful. I’m 32 and have and had female friends and family who had abortions and I see the spiritual and psychological damage it’s done to them. I don’t believe pro-choice advocates tell the whole story. Recent events in South Dakota have made me all the more aware.
I don’t feel that abortion is right in all cases but I believe becoming a parent means a willingness to sacrifice even life itself for my child. Thus, I wonder if saving the life of the mother is, indeed, justification enough for abortion. Certainly I have compassion for people. I pray that no one ever has to make that choice. What do you believe?
Intellectually, I understand what you mean about the fetus becoming a full-fledged human life only after it is born. But, when is a child born? After conception or after it passes through the vagina? Knowing what people know now about premature birth and the ability to successfully incubate a child 3 or months prematurely born – does a child have to be physically “born” to be considered a full-fledged human being?
Answer: In Jewish law, a child (or any mammal for that matter is “born” when either the head emerges or if most of the body emerges. Whether or not the child can survive on its own without the mother does not play a role in determining the status of the fetus.
As for what I believe. I believe that the Torah was given by God to man as a moral code book for life. Sometimes we don’t understand everything in there, but it nevertheless represents Divine wisdom. So what I assume you are asking me is to pretend that the Torah wasn’t given yet. Which direction would my own moral compass point me to? ( Keep in mind that my years of Torah study make me quite a biased arbiter. But I will try.) I happen not to have a strong personal opinion either way. The way I look at it is, if the fetus is just a part of the woman’s body, then abortion is OK. If its not, its murder. Who makes that determination? Who can decide either way? I can’t. To me, both arguments have their merits.
I enjoy your questions. It’s dialogues like this that have kept the Jewish people alive for all these years.
-
OK, well you can promote fines for someone that stabs babies with 1cm of head out, I'll promote Mr. Sparky.
-
OK, well you can promote fines for someone that stabs babies with 1cm of head out, I'll promote Mr. Sparky.
What fines? Why? And no court today with real power and authority. Things aren't just by your feelings. Here I will give a list of the Poskim past and present and what they said on this issue, (FYI I disregard the Zohar, but will include it anyway because it is part of the post and I don't want to distort it)
1.Tosfos - abortion is Muttar
2.Ran and Rosh - abortion is muttar as long as you are not putting the mother in physical danger by terminating the pregnancy
3.Ramban, Ramah, Behag - Abortion is a bad thing because we are preventing the existence of a future Human being and shomer Mitzvos, but it is still permitted to do in extenuating circumstances
4.Maharit - Abortion is assur because one is wounding, or causing a chavallah, in the pregnant mother. According to this approach, abortions would be permitted for constructive purposes, in the same way that one is allowed to wound oneself for a constructive purpose. Some would extend this even further and say that a woman can abort her own fetus, just as she is allowed to wound herself.
5.Rav ZN Goldberg 's understanding of the Rambam - that abortion would be prohibited due to chavallah of the fetus (this would be an additional reason for the prohibition, above whatever understanding you may have of the Rambam, and above other reasons suggested by HaRav Goldberg in other places. I am not claiming that HaRav Goldberg holds that this is the only reason why an abortion may be prohibited. - see our lengthy discussion of the Rambam's opinion here)
6.According to the Ohr Sameakh's understanding of the Rosh, one who performs an abortion without the permission of the parents is transgressing the prohibition of gezeilah, stealing.
7.According to HaRav SZA ZTL one who aborts a fetus is guilty of gezeilah from the fetus him/herself. Whether or not the parents would be allowed to give permission remains an open question.
8.Chavos Yair, due to the prohibition of wasting seed (which according to him is a torah prohibition)
9.According to the Mizrachi and Rav Chaim Palagi and their interpretation of the Rishonim, the Chachamim declared that a Jew is prohibited from performing an abortion because a gentile is prohibited, and it would be inappropriate for a Jew to be allowed to do something that is prohibited to a gentile. They explicitly and vehemently reject the possibility that it has anything to do with Shefichat damim (murder).
10.According to R Yaakov Emden, abortions are prohibited because of waste, which is a rabbinic aspect of the HZL prohibition; therefore they can be performed in circumstances of great need. If the child is illegitimate from a relationship that would incur the death penalty, the RYE would allow it outright.
11.The opinion of the Beit Yehuda and the Chofetz Chaim (according to his interpretation of Tosfos) that it was a rabbinic decree and the reason for this decree was because it is akin to murder.
12.Abortion is a rabbinic decree because permitting abortions would encourage promiscuity (Chavos Yair 31)
13.Abortion is a rabbinic decree because it would be a negation of the mitzvah of P’ru U’rvu (the obligation to procreate) (Mishpetei Uziel here)
14.Abortion was a rabbinic decree because it will prevent the potential of a future life (Mishpetei Uziel here)
15.Abortion was a rabbinic decree because by terminating a pregnancy, one prevents a future soul from doing mitzvos (Ohel Moshe by Rav Moshe Zweig Chelek 3 page 49)
16.Abortions are considered morally wrong by other religions, and thus we should also take a moral stand (Ohel Moshe, see above)
17.The opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein that it is indeed prohibited due to murder
18.The opinion of the Maharam Shick and Sdei Chemed that it is Avizrayhu of retzichah due to chatzi shiur
19.The opinion of the Minchas Avrohom that it is due to murder but he differs from RMF by only applying this rule if the fetus is viable
20.The opinion of the Meshekh chochmah and Moshav Zekeinim LeDaas Baalei Tosfos who hold that it is murder and liable "medin shamayim", and the drasha of rabbi yishmael only exempts Jews from punishment from Beit Din
21.One more opinion is that of the Zohar, which I did not discuss because it is unclear from the Zohar what the Zohar actually holds from a Halachic perspective. The Zohar speaks about how terrible abortion is because it is ruining the creation of God. (see` Zohar Shmot 3:2)
http://rationalistmedicalhalacha.blogspot.com/2011/02/now-that-i-have-completed-my.html
-
22. Peasant LKZ: Abortion is murder
-
22. Peasant LKZ: Abortion is murder
:::D peasants are worthless garbage. :P
-
:::D peasants are worthless garbage. :P
Peasents were adherets to a Feudal system where they were bought and sold with land, and were farmers. Anyways, you don't even understand me when I talk, so keep your lashon hara for yourself.
-
Peasents were adherets to a Feudal system where they were bought and sold with land, and were farmers. Anyways, you don't even understand me when I talk, so keep your lashon hara for yourself.
Lashon Hara? You referred to yourself as a "peasant". How is that Lashon Hara? I said when dealing with serious questions such as this, when we have Hachamim vs. a self described "peasant" , for me the opinions and rulings of the Hachamim are more important then blanket statements from "peasants", or put another way "Am Haartzim" (Jewish way of saying "people of the land" aka peasants).
-
Lashon Hara? You referred to yourself as a "peasant". How is that Lashon Hara? I said when dealing with serious questions such as this, when we have Hachamim vs. a self described "peasant" , for me the opinions and rulings of the Hachamim are more important then blanket statements from "peasants", or put another way "Am Haartzim" (Jewish way of saying "people of the land" aka peasants).
As per your sources, I'm not alone on this. I'm not a peasant either. Just giving you more rope to do with as you please, since you were acting self-superior.
-
As per your sources, I'm not alone on this. I'm not a peasant either. Just giving you more rope to do with as you please, since you were acting self-superior.
Dude, whatever. I don't want to further discuss much with you. Sorry to say but your mentality is that of a fundamentalist. If you refuse to recognize the sources of Halacha then we have nothing to discuss. You fit in much more with the Christian fundamentalist type of crowds and perhaps you can include some of the "Kabbalists"/ people who scream "Daas Toyrah" yet don't have any Daat (or Daas as they say) themselves and aren't able to rationally and Halahically deal with the issues.
Real Peasants :laugh:
-
Dude, whatever. I don't want to further discuss much with you. Sorry to say but your mentality is that of a fundamentalist. If you refuse to recognize the sources of Halacha then we have nothing to discuss. You fit in much more with the Christian fundamentalist type of crowds and perhaps you can include some of the "Kabbalists"/ people who scream "Daas Toyrah" yet don't have any Daat (or Daas as they say) themselves and aren't able to rationally and Halahically deal with the issues.
Real Peasants :laugh:
When did you start hating your fellow Jews so much? One way or another, you can clearly see that other Rabbis agree with my position, murder unless it's to save a life. Also, it's human logic. If you kill a baby when it has 2 cm of head out, or 5 cm of head out, no risk to the mother, what would be the difference in punishment? You can't tell me you'll punish a mid-delivery stabber any less than one who waits until after the delivery to stab the baby, if he did it in front of you on your first son's first birthday. I'm going at the issues slowly now, and you have yet to provide a legitimate response to the question I've repeated to you now at least five times. What would be the punishment for the chief Rabbi in Israel if he waited until only 1 mm was left before the amount of head your baby had out was enough for it to be human, and he stabbed it? The baby is a living, self-sustaining thing that might potentially die, and though it can live on its own, it just hasn't tried it yet, so that gets it the status of what? If you stick it in a machine, and it never lives on it's own, or was raised in a test tube, and then can survive without the machine, but is still connected, killing it is murder just the same if it's connected or you take 1 second to unplug it, because it's alive. The Rabbis are clearly not talking about this kind of abortion we have today, but about taking a plant to end the pregancy if the woman can't take the delivery, or there's some sort of problem in the land that the new baby wouldn't really survive if it came anyways. 300 million babies killed for convenience, even if you locked the parents up for a week for assault, or whatever twisted thing you want to call baby killing, it's not going to help the situation.
Maybe you suspect I'm going to connect points based on your answer, so I'll just tell you I will so you can try to be as pro-murder as you want in your answer, but back to 1, what do you do with the baby -1mm stabber?
-
Tag,
You are getting a bit unraveled in this thread. I did not see anyone bring any 'kabbalist' sources except you... So why are you knocking them? You sometimes strike me as an odd bird who has not decided where he stands and is making it up as he goes along. You attack every rabbi and source you don't agree with and this is not the way Jews discuss the issues.
In most discourse we attempt to reconcile the sources. And as you posted yourself there is a great range of opinions on the topic.
By your own rationalist reposting, the great Rav Feinstein Zt'l considered abortion murder and this clearly supports LKZ's contention. You have only resorted to namecalling and lashon hara in order to defend your position.
But this entire topic is now becoming a personal issue.... I have posted the Halacha many times and it clearly involves whether the baby has begun to be born (the head comes out)... I have no problem accepting the view of the talmid Chachamim.
-
muman- what are you talking about? I was saying that their is a Halahic way to deal with the issues and then their is the fundamentalist type of way(s). One example I brought are the "kabbalist" and "daas Torah" types of people and "argument" which are false. This is my views consistently. I am knocking those who aren't intellectually honest and just say that something is just because they said it is. Its fundamentalism and anti-rationalism as well.
I was going to bring this video up earlier, but I see it probably won't help as I also see that you turned against me as well since I DARED to bring up the "Kabbalists" into this discussion as well.
Here goes nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tj_SwHGdk0
-
muman- what are you talking about? I was saying that their is a Halahic way to deal with the issues and then their is the fundamentalist type of way(s). One example I brought are the "kabbalist" and "daas Torah" types of people and "argument" which are false. This is my views consistently. I am knocking those who aren't intellectually honest and just say that something is just because they said it is. Its fundamentalism and anti-rationalism as well.
I was going to bring this video up earlier, but I see it probably won't help as I also see that you turned against me as well since I DARED to bring up the "Kabbalists" into this discussion as well.
Here goes nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tj_SwHGdk0
Every time, 2 hours of lashon hara, then a source showing Satmar who we already call rodef gets posted.
Still waiting to a response for my question.
-
I answered your questions before. Once the head comes out, it is FULL life, anyone touching it is a murderer.
Before head comes out if its a goy, he is liable for the death penalty, if its a Jew if inside the stomach even right before child birth not liable for the death penalty, MOST likely for damages (and probably monetary as well ) in wounding the mother (as extension of the limb) and/or other damages as well.
1 cm, vs. 2 cm I don't know the exact. But again, their is a certain cut off. Once it is passed then it is full life, its life is just as = to the mother's. Before that it is not a full life even up to the time of child birth, therefore the mother's life takes precedence and it isn't murder.
-
This is so tiring tag... I wish you would just relax...
You are the one who injected the so called 'kabbalist' view (which I have no idea what you are talking about)... I brought the basic Halacha from the Torah (the issue of the pregnant woman being struck and miscarrying, and the issue of rodefim)... I have looked into the topic many times in the five years I have been involved with JTF. And I have commented every time that there is a permitted abortion (in the case of the safety of the mother).
I cannot understand what you are arguing about here. You support being allowed to kill the baby even if it is not a rodef? I don't know where that is supported by any sources. Accidentally causing a miscarriage is not the same as deliberately terminating the pregnancy...
If you care about this argument maybe you can clarify your position...
I don't see what Satmar has anything to do with this discussion either... Straw men?
-
Muman- no ,I was just responding to him putting aside the Rishonim and other sources (who yes had and have different clarifications and Psakim on this matter) and just putting himself into the picture and the opinion of a "peasant". That's what I meant. When we discuss issues, we have to stick to the sources and not like the circus that goes on with stupid, irrational people who just spew what they want without clarifying anything based on anything else. Then I interjected the fact that that is the ways of fundamentalists such as the Xtian's, the Kabbalists and those who espouse "Daas-Toyra" without ant real and substantial proof for anything. Their opinion, just is and that is all because after all they just say they majoc word "Daas Toyra" and that is all. This is fundamentalist crap, that's all.
-
I answered your questions before. Once the head comes out, it is FULL life, anyone touching it is a murderer.
Before head comes out if its a goy, he is liable for the death penalty, if its a Jew if inside the stomach even right before child birth not liable for the death penalty, MOST likely for damages (and probably monetary as well ) in wounding the mother (as extension of the limb) and/or other damages as well.
1 cm, vs. 2 cm I don't know the exact. But again, their is a certain cut off. Once it is passed then it is full life, its life is just as = to the mother's. Before that it is not a full life even up to the time of child birth, therefore the mother's life takes precedence and it isn't murder.
OK, so if your wife was giving birth to your first son, and his head was 1 cm before you consider him alive, and I stab it in the head, say I have little money, because I do this with other people that think like you a lot, how much would you want the courts to fine me?
-
OK, so if your wife was giving birth to your first son, and his head was 1 cm before you consider him alive, and I stab it in the head, say I have little money, because I do this with other people that think like you a lot, how much would you want the courts to fine me?
Stop asking me stupid questions. I have no say in this, Halacha is Halacha and I am not a judge. On top of that how I am even supposed to know the amount exactly?
If your wife was sitting and someone comes and chopps her leg off how much would you want to sue for. (its a silly question, don't answer it).
+ the baby wont be waiting half way on top of that.
-
Stop asking me stupid questions. I have no say in this, Halacha is Halacha and I am not a judge. On top of that how I am even supposed to know the amount exactly?
If your wife was sitting and someone comes and chopps her leg off how much would you want to sue for. (its a silly question, don't answer it).
+ the baby wont be waiting half way on top of that.
OK, so the bottom line is that 10,000, 100,000 whatever, any amount of money, if someone stabs your baby who would have been out in two seconds, and gives you that as compensation, you're a happy Tag. Right?
-
OK, so the bottom line is that 10,000, 100,000 whatever, any amount of money, if someone stabs your baby who would have been out in two seconds, and gives you that as compensation, you're a happy Tag. Right?
Stupid question, what does being happy or not have to do with anything? Their is law and that is all. Its the same as if someone harmed your wife's leg, are you happy with 10,000 or 100,000 ? What does being happy have to do with anything. Anyway its a stupid argument to make, we are talking about what is the bottom line and what's it defined as.
Dude I'm not continuing this convo.
-
Stupid question, what does being happy or not have to do with anything? Their is law and that is all. Its the same as if someone harmed your wife's leg, are you happy with 10,000 or 100,000 ? What does being happy have to do with anything. Anyway its a stupid argument to make, we are talking about what is the bottom line and what's it defined as.
Dude I'm not continuing this convo.
I don't think you understand the concept of a stupid question. Just because I called that one question you made that was a statement stupid, doesn't mean we have to go to war.
Yes, if someone harms my wife's leg, I'll be happy with 100,000, it will pay the bills, and it's about fair. "we are talking about what is the bottom line and what's it defined as. " Not sure if this is English, but first I'll say that the "bottom line" is defined as the minimum operating cash you need for your business to work. We don't just go into the simple meanings of Torah. If someone stabs a baby in the head when it's head isn't out enough for you, it's murder.