{"id":2493,"date":"2020-08-09T09:26:21","date_gmt":"2020-08-09T13:26:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/?p=2493"},"modified":"2020-08-09T09:26:21","modified_gmt":"2020-08-09T13:26:21","slug":"abortion-halakhah-and-civil-society","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/utj.org\/viewpoints\/2020\/08\/abortion-halakhah-and-civil-society\/","title":{"rendered":"Abortion, Halakhah, and Civil Society"},"content":{"rendered":"

In \u201cThe Jewish Case For Abortion Rights<\/a>\u201d\u00a0by the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) and a response by my teacher Rabbi David Novak<\/a>, written for the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation (JPLF) and republished on UTJ Viewpoints, we see what I would call a true mahloket l\u2019shem shamayim<\/em> \u2013 a debate for the sake of heaven.\u00a0 Both NCJW and JPLF refer to their understanding of the Jewish canon to inform contemporary political advocacy The discussion is interesting but also offers some reason for caution.<\/p>\n

JPLF argues that abortion other than to save the life of the mother is considered murder in Jewish law and is patently immoral.\u00a0 Therefore, Jews should advocate for abortion to be restricted to situations where the mother\u2019s life is in danger.\u00a0 NCJW argues that halakhah does not see abortion as murder and permits abortion to save the mother from \u201csuffering and emotional pain.\u201d\u00a0 NCJW concludes that advocating for access to abortion is appropriate both for this reason and because it has implications for such Torah values as personal safety, justice, and freedom. \u00a0I largely agree with NCJW\u2019s halakhic conclusion (for reasons I articulated in my comments to a UTJ and Friends Facebook Group post here<\/a>, see also the analysis of my teacher Rabbi Alan J. Yuter here<\/a>).\u00a0 I would add that requiring a woman to endure significant anguish to carry a fetus to term is also morally debatable. However, NCJW seem to conclude without warrant that this halakhic perspective supports an absolute right to abortion, whereas I would argue that the values behind this halakhic conclusion might support laws designed to assess, for instance, the veracity of the mother\u2019s \u201csuffering and emotional pain\u201d before permitting an abortion, at least later in the pregnancy.\u00a0 In short, I think that while JPLF and NCJW speak in terms of applying their Jewish values to political advocacy in civil society, they both do so in a speculative manner and perhaps read their own moral and cultural conclusions into the Jewish texts that they interpret (no doubt I may be doing the same).<\/p>\n

Interestingly, both JPLF and NCJW support advocating for particular laws based on their religious beliefs.\u00a0 While such attitudes have always raised alarm bells for me, I suppose that there is nothing wrong with this.\u00a0 While NCJW criticizes laws forbidding abortion as imposing Christian perspectives on others, it strikes me that permitting abortion based on the argument that Judaism does not consider it murder also seeks to establish laws based on perceived Jewish values, even if it does not force anyone to act on those laws.\u00a0 Abortion is a moral question, requiring us to determine whether and when a fetus has interests that are worthy of protection and when, if ever, those rights override the mother\u2019s autonomy.\u00a0 It would be perverse to suggest that government should never pass laws that are subject to moral debate.\u00a0 It would be equally perverse to argue that one should not refer to one\u2019s faith tradition when contemplating a position on these issues of public policy.\u00a0 Why should a person\u2019s moral judgment be any more or less applicable to a situation because it is grounded in a faith tradition?\u00a0 I therefore find myself, surprisingly, in agreement with JPLF that there is nothing wrong with Jewish advocates who believe that abortion is murder working with Christian groups who come to the same conclusion.\u00a0 If the Jewish people are called upon to be a \u201clight unto the nations,\u201d it seems to me that making common cause with others who share our moral outlook is a religious imperative.<\/p>\n

Similarly, I think it is fine for Jews who draw another conclusion on the abortion debate to work with others who share their conclusions (including some Christian thinkers and groups).\u00a0 This group is arguing based on a valid view of our tradition, one backed by such luminaries as Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and Hakham Ben-Zion Uziel.\u00a0 Therefore, I question whether it is fair for JPLF to suggest that NJCW is being deceitful, distorting Judaism, or being \u201coverly influenced by a secularist culture that is in principle hostile\u201d to Jewish morality.\u00a0 As with most issues, there is no single or unitary Jewish position.<\/p>\n

Although I support Jewish groups making common cause with other religious groups on issues of morality in society, I do so with significant trepidation.\u00a0 As Jews, we should be ever mindful that we will not always agree with practitioners of more widespread religions (in fact, a great many Jews disagree with JPLF\u2019s conclusions on this very issue) and that freedom of religion is designed to protect the rights and interests of minorities.\u00a0 Therefore, I am concerned by JPLF\u2019s suggestion that we rejoice that \u201cthe conversation around abortion has been driven by Christians.\u201d\u00a0 The fact that \u201cChristians quite correctly recognize that their morality \u2013 and that of the Jews \u2013 is rooted in a common source: the revealed Torah\u201d is cold comfort in the many situations where Christians understand the Torah differently.\u00a0 In fact, it is worth remembering that Christians do read the main biblical text related to abortion (Ex. 21:22-25) differently from Jews.\u00a0 Even if JPLF argues that this different reading does not have practical effects on the current abortion discussion, if the policy debate shifts in favor of the anti-abortion side, differences between Christian and Jewish thinking could well become important in future discussion of when an abortion can be performed to save the life of the mother.\u00a0 Therefore, we must contemplate limiting principles as to when we work with others with whom we agree religiously, as well as when we defend the prerogatives of those with whom we disagree religiously.\u00a0 One part of that limiting principle may be that we only advocate for laws which are in fulfillment of our moral obligation to protect individuals or groups from the impact of the actions of another person or group \u2013 for example laws to protect a fetus or to compel parents to allow their children to have medical treatments that are against their religious principles.\u00a0 However, we should also contemplate the extent to which we should allow some leeway to those who are acting out of different moral or religious convictions even in some of these areas.\u00a0 To borrow a rabbinic phrase \u2013 tsarikh iyyun gadol <\/em>\u2013 this requires much careful consideration.<\/p>\n\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Both NCJW and JPLF refer to their understanding of the Jewish canon to inform contemporary political advocacy The discussion is interesting but also offers some reason for caution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":2483,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[152,82,101,78,127,76],"tags":[],"coauthors":[89],"class_list":["post-2493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-abortion","category-halakhah","category-life-cycle","category-modern-judaism","category-politics","category-womens-forum"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t