Rabbi: Preborn are “water” until day 40, but pro-lifers ignore science
by Kelli
In the case of abortion, Jewish law leans toward the modern pro-choice position, but also holds many powerful arguments for pro-life as well….
In the first forty days since conception, the fetus is considered by the sages to merely be water, and as “the thigh of its mother” (Yevamot 69b; Bava Kama 78b). After forty days however, the fetus is ascribed as a fully potential life whereupon that potential life becomes a full life upon birth. After birth, of course, there is a full status change….
Due to the distinct delineation of potential vs. full life, there are various Jewish approaches as to when an abortion can be permitted and at what stage during pregnancy….
What we have seen, sadly, is the proliferation of attempts to abolish abortion through so-called “personhood” state ballot initiatives that declare a fetus a person from the day of inception, making all abortion, and some birth control methods, a crime, regardless of incest, rape, or the welfare of the mother….
The most notable application of the “personhood” amendment to clinical regulation can be seen in attempts in a Texas law requiring providers at all abortion clinics to meet “ambulatory surgical center” standards (i.e. having admitting privileges at a local hospital, even if they are refused by the hospital), which in effect would close all but seven clinics in the state….
This decision, which is likely to appear in front of the Supreme Court, is yet another that ignores basic science.
~ Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, claiming the pro-life movement “ignor[es] basic science” while admitting that Jewish sages ignore the science of human development, The Huffington Post, December 22
Editor’s Note: See this link for more information on embryonic development during the first 40 days after conception.
[Photo via The Jewish Week]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s crazy how progressives take a talking point or buzzword and apply it to everything. Amendments establishing personhood have nothing to do with clinic regulations, but because personhood legislation has failed at the ballot box, they try to tie it to everything, even laws many personhood people would morally object to. How does requiring things like hallways wide enough for stretchers ignore “science,” another buzzword? Do they think in buzzwords, or is it just a rhetorical charade?
His words would sound ludicrous to us today if we replaced “fetus” with “slave”, but to slave-owners of the 1800s it would make perfect sense.
What we have seen, sadly, is the proliferation of attempts to abolish slavery through so-called “personhood” federal initiatives that declare a slave a person, making all slavery, a crime, regardless of welfare of the plantation owner.
I see the point of this post….
the pro-borts will invoke “Science,” no matter how shoddy, when it serves their cause. But they also readily ignore science and invoke religious mythology, if that serves the cause of abortion.
‘Admitting privileges’ have nothing to do with personhood. Personhood is about the human rights of the child. Admitting privileges are about medical standards of safety for women. There is no overlap…. except that both reduce the profits of abortionists and expose their dirty practices, and sometimes “force them to close” their clinics.
Women expect abortionists to be fully trained physicians, because abortion is invasive surgery. Women expect abortionists to have a relationship with a local hospital, because a common complication of abortion surgery is injury and excessive bleeding — which can be life-threatening. ‘Admitting privileges’ require abortionists to meet these expectations.
I think the good Rabbi needs to get his science, and his medical standards, and his Talmudic tradition into their proper categories.
“the proliferation of attempts to abolish abortion”–HAHA. What else could truly ‘PRO-LIFE-erate’ quite like the work of ending abortion.
The preborn child is not yet a fetus until the 8th week, so his statement, “In the first forty days since conception, the fetus is considered by the sages to merely be water…” should say “embryo,” not “fetus.”
And Del, you are right. I don’t understand the statement claiming the Personhood movement is responsible for regulatory laws. But once again, fact checking and accurate stating of the pro-life position don’t seem to be a strong suit of pro-choicers, including this rabbi.
I am so curious about this modern Jewish tendency to be pro-choice. Uh, if Jesus was not the Messiah, as they believe, then why take the chance that you might abort the real one? Is that the biggest theological disconnect next to pro-choice Christians? I think so. At least the atheists can claim ignorance of the moral consequences of abortion. Jews and Christians should know better. Hindus too. I know a sickening Hindu woman that is rabidly pro-choice, but golly gee, don’t eat any beef, it might be your ancestor. Disconnect with a capital D.
9ek, I think the tendency for Jews in the US to identify as pro-choice has more to do with where they live rather than any religious reason. Well over half the Jews in the US live in exceedingly blue states. As with many CINO politicians in urban areas, ideology can be shaped more by the urban mindset than by religion. Or in the case of this rabbi, more by academia. Far as I can tell, this rabbi has had little or no experience in synagogue leadership experience. It appears most of his experience is in academia, where discussions revolve around the stupid anti-science people who live in flyover country like Texas.
See maps with religious group distribution in the US:
http://religions.pewforum.org/maps
I stand corrected. Rabbi Yanklowitz did serve as senior rabbi at a synagogue in Overland Park, KS for nine months, not a terribly long time IMHO. Otherwise he has spent the majority of his career in academia, as an activist, or as director for social organizations.
Well, I don’t give anyone slack for where they live. Every single pro-choice Jew has voluntarily given up hope in the Messiah, which is a real slap to the Lord’s face (if Jesus is really not the one). In fact, even Jesus told them in his day that they block the path to the Lord and will neither enter in, nor permit anyone else to enter in. If Jesus spoke the truth, I ask them, and they prove it today by a willingness to abort any possible Messiah, then their ancestors may as well have converted to Christianity. Because denying Christ to hold out for another, while at the same time preventing a possible Messiah from being born, well, that’s the work of the father of lies, isn’t it? And doing so also renders (for pro-choicers) the Jewish religion into an empty set of social customs, with no redemptive quality whatsoever. Might as well have that ham and cheese sandwich.
9ek at 1:49pm is right on. How can any Jew that is still awaititng the coming of the Messiah possibly allow for abortion? They would have to be deemed insane.
“Do they think in buzzwords, or is it just a rhetorical charade?”
I think it was a rhetorical charade that they repeated so many times that it eventually seeped into their thinking.
Hasn’t the Jewish nation lost enough people? How can they be favored by God yet shed innocent blood? If I were Jewish, I would not support anything that smacks of a holocaust.
If someone were to offer an argument, calling on the name of science, claiming Jews to be less than human, should that argument be accepted? Suppose the youngest and oldest were argued to be even less human and more disposable than those most able to contribute to the needs of society? What if the person were in a position of authority, would that argument carry more conviction? Can the holocaust be forgotten?
What seems even more strange is this is so similar to someone being sexually abused and then going forward to abuse another.
The light of the world came into the world from the Jewish nation. I do not think their role in this history is yet ended. I should then not be surprised they should be so diabolically attacked.
It is unfortunate how widespread pro-choice sentiment is among Reform and Conservative Jews, thanks largely to the influence of socialism in both the US and Israel. Pro-life views dominate among Orthodox and Karaite. The HuffPo only talks to rabbis that “preach to the choir”, though, and it reflects badly on all of us.
And many prominent rabbis throughout the last thousand years have affirmed that we should conform our medical beliefs with science–rejecting Outdated medical beliefs in favor of modern best practices, for example. The commentary cited above may have been a reasonable hypothesis at one time, but the growth of our knowledge on the subject has rendered the commentary less than authoritative.
And no one that young should have the opportunity to lead a Jewish congregation.
Uh, if Jesus was not the Messiah, as they believe, then why take the chance that you might abort the real one? Is that the biggest theological disconnect next to pro-choice Christians? I think so.
Maybe they believe in an omnipotent and omniscient deity who will, in His power and wisdom, ensure that the Messiah will be born according to a divine plan. Is that really so hard for you to understand?
Maybe it is you who do not understand. The Lord gives us all free will. If he wanted obedience without free will, he would have done what we do: build robots. We approach The Lord willingly, like a husband and wife that marry for love. Mary was not forced to accept what the messenger of The Lord came to tell her. She said, “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And that is why The Lord trusted her, trusted her with a tiny, vulnerable person, whom she loved and nurtured. Hallelujah, He is born!
Maybe it is you who do not understand. The Lord gives us all free will. If he wanted obedience without free will, he would have done what we do: build robots. We approach The Lord willingly, like a husband and wife that marry for love. Mary was not forced to accept what the messenger of The Lord came to tell her. She said, “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And that is why The Lord trusted her, trusted her with a tiny, vulnerable person, whom she loved and nurtured.
If you were to read the text, you would see that Mary was given no choice on the matter. Nor is it accurate to say that her acceptance of God’s will is “why [God] trusted her.” Rather, Mary affirmed her willingness to bear Christ after the decision had already been made for her. That does not diminish Mary’s piety, but there’s no textual evidence that God’s plan for the salvation of humankind could be thwarted by a woman who did not want to be pregnant. Moreover, even if you do believe that all God can do is throw a messiah into a uterus and hope it works out, that’s no reason to believe that Jews share that view of divine working. And therefore, the argument that pro-choice Jews are by definition doing the work of Satan doesn’t hold water. Not that logic is really the way to go in this context,