Commenter Joseph Hertzlinger comes up with the standard social conservative objection to my position on abortion. He thinks that the understanding that the fetus is a person is a brand new idea. Well brand new in terms of human history. Read the comments at the “Joseph Hertzlinger” link to get up to date on the Jewish position on abortion. Or read this: The Jewish Position On Abortion.
In any case, the claim that a child is not a person a moment before birth and is a person a moment after birth should be taken no more seriously than the claim that the universe is six thousand years old. If we can squeeze 19th-century paleontology into Judaism, we can squeeze 19th-century embryology into Judaism.
My reply to Joseph (revised and extended):
Joseph,
The idea that embryology creates a new fact contradicts what Hippocrates knew 2,500 years ago. And the long interaction between the Jews and the Greeks would indicate that the Jews got the message no more than 100 years after Hippocrates proclaimed it.
The Jewish idea stems from the fact that until the baby starts exiting from the mother that it is her property. The alternative is that the mother is the property of the State when she is pregnant. The Jews have a long libertarian tradition (mostly forgotten in practice) but you can read about it in Samuel.
=====
In fact Jesus was in part a reaffirmation of Jewish libertarianism. Which was corrupted by the Council of Nicaea. Clever those Romans.
=====
The Christians don’t even know their own tradition. I think it is because they are ignorant of the Jewish tradition. It is why I often not so jokingly say. “Time to get back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.”
===
There is no doubt that Jesus as a learned man knew of the Hippocratic Oath. And yet in the New Testament there is not one mention of abortion. You might want to ask yourself why. Might it be that he agreed with the Jewish position?
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
9 responses to “Forgetting The Jewish Tradition”
The document you link to at P&C is written by non-Orthodox Rabbis, so it’s inaccurate to huff about “Tradition” while quoting me-too assimilationist revisionism of recent vintage.
Let’s try it this way:
Liberal Jews oppose government regulation of abortion because they have replaced Torah morality with the relativist catechism of left-liberal political movements.
Orthodox Jews oppose regulation of abortion because Jewish law *requires* abortion when the mother’s life is in danger – a ruling which contradicts Christian teaching, which would kill the mother to save the (unbaptised) baby. So there is fear that triage abortions will be included in the ban, or difficult to perform.
“Traditional” Judaism – that is, the authentic tradition going back to the times of Jesus and Hippocrates – is in no way libertarian about abortion: in no way is this a “woman’s choice”. Only severe extenuating circumstances (such as danger to another human life) allow termination of what is most definitely considered a human life.
Humans have free will – but Judaism does not consider men and women “free” in the libertarian/Rousseauian sense – they are obligated by the Torah’s moral code.
And pregnancy obligates.
Ben David,
There have always been contending schools of thought in Judaism. It is a Jewish tradition.
I happen to agree with the school of thought presented in the paper linked. For the reasons cited.
I agree about being obligated to the Torah moral code. I do not agree that such a code should be turned into law.
I personally abhor abortion. I would not turn women into wards of the state while pregnant to enforce that abhorrence. There are worse things than women individually making bad moral choices.
Suppose women are wards of the State when pregnant. And suppose a Malthusian group comes to power (such as we have currently). Given the “wards of the state” condition what is to prevent the Malthusians from requiring abortion (ever hear of the one child policy in China)?
I swear (often – I’m a sailor) people do not think these things through.
In addition Son of David,
One must remember that much of the Torah moral code has been abrogated by clever Rabbis with clever reasoning. I’m no fan of that sort of splitting hairs to come to the right conclusion. You know – the Talmudic style.
I prefer that the change was declared straight up. Stoning women for adultery is wrong. No matter that it is part of the Torah moral code. We were made in the Maker’s image. We should act like it and be willing to bear the consequences. Revelation did not end with Abraham. Are we children? I would hope not. In fact I don’t believe it. And act accordingly.
I prefer to be guided by Hosea 6:6. As the Rabbis of the last two millenia or so have been.
And Rousseau has not informed my reasoning one bit. I am barely familiar with his school of thought. My thought comes from the limited government school (of the US Founders) not the anarchist school.
Would it not be better to distinguish Hassidic, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform traditions? Of course, Reform tradition may be an oxymoron.
In general, the Catholic Church has principled positions on almost all moral issues that are worthy of consideration if not acceptance. And many of Its positions are rooted in ancient Jewish thought. The Talmud is too clever by half for practical moral teaching.
Bob,
I grew up in the Orthodox tradition and currently attend a Reform Synagogue. Despite Ben David the traditions are not that far apart. The behavior of the congregations is though.
The Catholic Church is a Big Government Church. They identify with the rulers. Not good. The Roman Church is quite apt. It is not the church of the anti-Roman Jesus. Although he did not favor open revolt. More like a change of heart. Withdrawing as much as possible.
I’d like to see the Jews return to their pre-King David roots. That is possible. It will take time.
And yes – the Talmud is good in spots – “whose ox was gored” is at the heart of most civil and commercial law. But in other places it is “if the bowl was cleaned and you set it on a dirty table is the bowl dirty?” Now a days we know that “it depends on how dirty the table is” but that old stuff is still studied despite its relative uselessness.
And the death penalty in Jewish law has been effectively ended. By sophistry. Why not just come out and say it? “Except for intentional mass murder – the heaviest penalty is life in prison.” Instead of requiring 100 witnesses who all agree to make the death penalty stick (it is not quite that but that is the kind of reasoning used to end it.)
Tradition should be followed for its usefulness. Not for its own sake.
Simon:
Stoning women for adultery is wrong.
– – – – – – – – – –
It wasn’t just women – but that wouldn’t fit the narrative, would it?
Like most condescending liberal Jews, you don’t even know the tradition you’re dissing.
Which lets you make it up to fit the “oh those backwards Rabbis” meme and any “progressive” agenda you are touting.
More Simon:
I prefer to be guided by Hosea 6:6. As the Rabbis of the last two millenia or so have been.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Jewish law has not been practiced because Jewish polity was shattered by exile. Not because of any “progress”.
Oh, and could you tell me exactly how a society should handle people who DO commit adultery and DO abort babies – without the hyperventilating about “stoning women” or “making them wards of the state”.
Easy to nitpick from the peanut gallery.
The claim that regulating X makes X the property of the State can be said about any law.
On the other hand, that’s one reason I’m starting to take anarchism more seriously.
Ben David,
The shattering of the Jewish polity was considered a message from on High. I believe that is part of the tradition these days.
Joseph,
If only the anarchists believed in personal property I believe they would have a point. But that gets you back to “if there is personal property who enforces it?” Rock meet hard place.