‘Oh, come on!” the e-mail read. “What’s a few dead children on the altar of my liberal slippery-slope paranoia?”
Gruesome as the imagery was, I had to smile. The message was intended as a humorous ‘Touché” from an academic who had originally contacted me in anger. He was not only honest enough to concede his error, but also perceptive enough to identify its origin.
What had motivated him to write in the first place was a letter published in The New York Times in which, on behalf of Agudath Israel of America, I welcomed the Supreme Court’s recent upholding of the federal law banning so-called partial-birth abortions.
“How in the world could you write such a letter?” the professor fumed. “You know perfectly well that the so-called partial-birth abortions are almost always only performed when there is a serious, potentially mortal danger to the birth-mother, and that Jewish law is clear and unambiguous in such cases: the life of the mother takes precedence over that of an unborn child.”
The professor is correct about Jewish religious law’s placement of the life of a Jewish mother before that of her unborn child. The Jewish legal metaphor for the fetus is a “rodef,” or “pursuer” — someone in the act of threatening a life, thereby forfeiting all rights to legal protection. But the professor, like many others who reacted with outrage to the Supreme Court’s ruling, had several facts about the particular case in question very wrong.
If a mother’s health is endangered during labor, even a late-term fetus can be legally dispatched in utero; it need never be partially extracted alive and then killed. What is more, the partial-birth abortion law contains an explicit exception in a case — if, in fact, any exists — where a physician feels it necessary to kill a partially emerged baby to save its mother’s life.
But beyond all that, my correspondent had simply not comprehended the most salient aspect of the procedure at issue: The baby has been born.
At least that is how Jewish religious law — which was what the professor invoked — views a baby whose “entire… head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,” in the federal law’s words.
That being the case, the law, at least from a Jewish perspective, does not address abortion at all. It addresses homicide. Case closed.
Which fact yielded the professor’s admirable, if crudely expressed, admission of error, and his further admission of its roots.
He had taken his cues, he realized, from a gaggle of groups — including several with “Jewish” in their names but judiciaries on their minds. Their members’ nightmares are dominated by the frightening possibility that our nation might one day reconsider its current blanket enshrinement of what they consider the inalienable right to abort. They insist on viewing the world through a tunnel called “Roe,” and are not beyond misrepresenting Judaism in the service of their myopia.
The Summer 2003 issue of Hadassah Magazine, to take one example, quotes unnamed authorities to maintain that Jewish law “implicitly assumes that a woman has the right to make her own reproductive choices.” The supplement’s “Jewish Law” section goes on to claim that “restricting access to reproductive services… undermines basic tenets of Judaism.” None of this is true.
To be sure, as my correspondent noted, a right to abortion in certain cases is sacrosanct to observant Jews. Talmudic sources are clear that the life of a pregnancy-endangered Jewish mother takes precedence over that of her unborn child. But that is so only when there is no way to preserve both lives.
Although the matter is hardly free of controversy, there are some respected rabbinic opinions that also permit abortion when a pregnancy seriously jeopardizes the mother’s health. Those narrow exceptions, however, in no way translate into some unlimited mother’s right to make whatever choice she may see fit about the life of the child she carries.
Put simply, the abortion issue is not only about rights but also about right — as in right and wrong. While Judaism has little to say about rights — it speaks rather about duties and obligations — it has much to say about rightness. And preventing potential life from developing when there is no truly compelling reason to do so, according to the Torah, is wrong.
The laws of civilized societies reflect and shape those societies’ values. And the devaluing of potential human life wrought by Roe v. Wade has helped devalue all human life in America for more than three decades. No, a straight line cannot be drawn between Columbine or Virginia Tech and the ready availability of abortion in the United States. But a society that shows respect for life at its earliest stages cannot but empower respect for life at every stage.
The possibility that individual states might one day be permitted to place some limits on the current “no fault” abortion law of the land is not a threat; for some of us it represents a hope, the possible beginning of a more strongly life-affirming era in our land. An era in which we are all a little less concerned with slippery slopes, and a little more about ennobling ideals.
“Choice” is the motto of those who want the fates of fetuses consigned to the decisions of their mothers. Moving from the book of social liberalism to the book of Deuteronomy, though, we find the Torah’s take on choice somewhat different.
“I have placed before you,” the Creator informs us through Moses, “life and death, the blessing and the curse.”
“Choose life,” the verse continues, “so that you and your seed will live.”
Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
What We Can Learn From Mel Brooks About Racism
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
You've successfully signed up!
You miserable lying hypocrite!
I would like to ask the rabbi why he does not appreciate the deep injury to the psyche of the baby born, who goes through life knowing always, unconsciously or consciously, that his birth mother gave him up. And the mother, who gives up a baby....who lives with that, always. It's a crime, in my opinion. Far worse than having an abortion.
Rabbi Shafran, Thank you so much for some sanity on this issue. The liberal perspective does not reflect Jewish values. Excellent article. Our society would benefit tremendously from concentrating on what is moral rather then what is legal.
Brilliant, thank you Rabbi Shafran.
The Rabbi writes, "Put simply, the abortion issue is not only about rights but also about right — as in right and wrong. While Judaism has little to say about rights — it speaks rather about duties and obligations — it has much to say about rightness. And preventing potential life from developing when there is no truly compelling reason to do so, according to the Torah, is wrong." With due respect I have ofen heard this argument, but I simply do not believe it to be true. The first Gemara that most people learn begins, "two people are holding on to one garment. This one says, 'I found it and it is entirely mine' and the other one says, 'I found it and it is entirely mine.'" A question of property RIGHTS not of moral obligations. I believe that there are a lot of generalizations of this type in the article which cannot be defended, even if one equates Judaism with contemporary Orthodoxy, a quesionable proposition in itself.
I find it very embarassing as a woman that so many hide behind the phrase, "pro choice," as if life(or death, for that matter) is the choice for human beings to make. It is not. "Pro choice" has become a cover for a form of birth control. Abortion is a medical issue where by a responsible doctor can determine whether or not a woman's life is in danger. It is morally wrong to choose to end an innocent life for one's personal convenience. Abortion is not the right of a woman whose choice is to engage in the act of which it's purpose is to create life.As Rabbi Shafran stated, "The laws of civilized societies reflect and shape those societies’ values." Roe v. Wade certainly has shaped the values of America.
Who is that very funny and honest professor ? That opening line is the best one in the whole piece. The guy should do stand-up !
I remember when I was aborted, that it really pissed me off !
Good article, and well put. It's one thing to hold (what's popularly referred to as) a "pro-choice" position on abortion. It's quite another to claim that it's a view founded in Jewish law.
Rabbi, Are there not also halachic opinions that take into consideration financial, psychological, and emotional damage to the potential mother? And where is there the concept in halacha of "potential life?" As you said, once a child has left the womb, it is "born." But before then, it has no status other than part of the pregnant mother. See, for example, Exodus 21:22, the MONETARY penalty for causing a miscarriage, as opposed to the death penalty, if in fact the fetus was considered a person. I would also like to know what country that prohibits abortion also cultivates this "respect for life" in other areas as well. Respectfully,
Rabbi Shafran -- "...some unlimited mother’s right to make whatever choice she may see fit about the life of the child she carries..." You're making the all-too-widespread and condescending assumption that women don't act responsibly in making the decision to abort. Guess you e\read Kennedy's opinion. And your 'graph on "The laws of civilized societies..." is just plain silly, if not all but totally wrong -- Look at the world: you could more likely get a fairly consistent inverse relationship --- countries most likely to forbid abortion are often dictatorial and/or have no programs or caring for their poor or for more all too many of their citizens..... "...it need never be partially extracted alive and then killed." And when did you get your medical degree?
Mr. Shafran does two things in this article. First, he debunks the identification of Judaism with liberalism. He is undeniably justified in pointing out that liberal Jewish Americans’ highly personal definitions of what it means to be a Jew are at odds with thousands of years of tradition and learning. However, he then goes further, and contends that “a society that shows respect for life at its earliest stages cannot but empower respect for life at every stage.” Besides being an assertion unsupported by evidence, the author’s opinion in this respect also goes beyond exegesis of Jewish law, which was the rubric under which he initially undertook to write the essay. If Mr. Shafran is advocating the view that the supremacy of Jewish religious law would make for the best form of government, whether in America or elsewhere, he ought to do so openly. If not, then he should take heed that he is at risk of the same kind of myopia of which he goes out of his way to accuse others.
UOJ, I know that a debate with a liberal is useless because once you start to bring up facts and reality a liberal's eyes start to glaze over. And then when they can't defend their indefensable position with facts and reality the emotion comes out and the name calling begins. I still can't understand why there is so much anger when discussing how our society should treat the murdering of innocent babies. A women's right to choose doesn't include the right to be irresponsible with nascent human life. People like you also tend to be against the death penalty for evil murderers because you "value the sanctity of life". I would use the H word here but I wouldn't want to resort to name calling.
I am sorry but i must disagree with the tenet of this editorial. It is not a question of what is right or wrong but who should make the decision. the decision should be between the doctor the rabbi and the mother and not some legal decision made by law makers. The fight to preserve the right for legal abortions has a long a bitter history. Fortunately we have progress from abortions by cot hangers to legal medical abortions. But there is a long and continuing fight in this country to revert to making all abortions illegal. i do not know this to be a fact but it sounds like the writer is on the side of the very conservative political spectrum that advocates no legal abortions.
I want to thank all of you who have posted comments here, both those who have expressed appreciation for my essay and – no less – those who have critiqued it in substantive ways. Since some questions were posed, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to them. Halacha cannot be divined directly from Torah verses; the Oral Law often presents the verses in ways different from their simple readings; halacha is the result of the process of analyzing and applying the Oral Law. There is indeed a range of halachic opinions about abortion, both regarding the graveness of its forbiddance in the absence of circumstances permitting it and with regard to when it is permitted. The general rule is that a threat posed by a birth to a Jewish mother’s life requires an abortion. If the mother is judged to likely become suicidal as a result of the birth, some authorities would also require an abortion. Financial considerations are never a factor in halacha permitting an abortion. Neither I nor Agudath Israel advocate making Jewish religious law the law of our country. What we do believe, though, is that many of the values of Jewish law (like respect for life) underlie American law and are thus pertinent to its development; and that American Jews have the same rights as any American to provide the input of their convictions to the legislative process. In matters of compromised human life’s value, whether at life’s beginning or its end, we feel it is not only permissible but imperative to add an authentic Jewish voice to the mix. I am not familiar with statistics correlating various societies’ attitudes toward abortion and murder rates (or other indicia of lack of respect for life). But even if there are societies that show respect for life at its earliest stages but not at later stages, I believe that those societies would be even more violent were they to treat the unborn as detritus. The argument that a woman should not have a right to make whatever choice she sees fit about a child she carries does not imply that women don’t act responsibly. It implies that people – men and women – do not always act responsibly. I would object no less were the law to give the husband the call. Or the doctor, who is no more a moral authority than his accountant or gardener. The point is that abortions should not be treated like tonsillectomies. I am not a doctor (although I did have the wonderful experience of helping my wife deliver our youngest child, who was born at home). But medical experts (quoted in the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal partial-birth abortion law) have stated clearly that if there is even a threat to the mother’s life, nothing prevents the doctor from killing the fetus when it is still in its mother’s body. So there need never be a case where a partially emerged fetus is killed in the air of a delivery room, which is what the law prohibits. And even so, the law still makes an exception for the (imaginary) case where preserving the mother’s life requires the otherwise prohibited procedure. Thank you all again for your comments.
I have yet to meet the woman who treats an abortion as she would a tonsillectomy. I agree with you that alternatives to "partial-birth abortion" should be explored, and if available used instead of this one, but since neither of us is a medical doctor, it's impossible for us to say what "should" be done. But spending this much time & energy & money on outlawing a practice that occurs so rarely seems irresponsible to me when we could be spending that kind of money on child & family services to help protect the children who already exist, especially the ones who are mistreated and abused because they weren't wanted in the first place. Who is picketing the homes of children who are beaten and burned and starved? Who is calling for their parents to be jailed? How many "pro-life" advocates are taking in foster children and adopting unwanted babies who were born addicted to drugs or brain-damaged? When this happens I'll start to believe their committment to "life."
Dear Sorele, Objective hospital workers, if you speak to them in confidence, will readily confirm that more than a small number of abortions are regarded by the almost-mothers as essentially post-facto birth control. But I agree that there must be a right to abortion. Nevertheless, like any right, it should not be an unlimited one. And one limitation should certainly concern defining when something is abortion and when it is infanticide. The issue at hand is not a medical one, but a moral one – and hence doctors are not the proper arbiters here. The child is, reasonably judged as (not to mention halachically) already born. As to the need to protect children and to foster adoption, I agree entirely – and note that many groups that are anti-abortion do in fact actively counsel women to adopt and assist in the arrangements. As to your feeling that a law against dispatching just-born babies is not worth the trouble, would you ever suggest that laws against stealing or murder are similarly ill-advised, that we would better just try to convince thieves to make restitution and ask violent people to undergo anger therapy? Let’s try to empower good; but let’s also try to tackle some evil too.
dear Rabbi,when a baby is aborted as in '' partial birth abortion'' the baby is stabed in the head just before he or she is fighting to come out of the womb'' full term 9 months old. the brain is sucked out will the baby is screaming. the democratcs are for this proceedure. what a wonderful political party.