Today, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing a woman’s constitutional right to abortion. Agudath Israel of America welcomes this historic development.
Agudath Israel has long been on record as opposing Roe v. Wade’s legalization of abortion on demand. Informed by the teaching of Jewish law that fetal life is entitled to significant protection, with termination of pregnancy authorized only under certain extraordinary circumstances, we are deeply troubled by the staggering number of pregnancies in the United States that end in abortion.
We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on the broader American society. We are of the view, however, that society, through its laws, should promote a social ethic that affirms the supreme value of life. Allowing abortion on demand, in contrast, promotes a social ethic that devalues life.
To be sure, there are certain extraordinary circumstances where our faith teaches that a woman should terminate her pregnancy. Agudath Israel fully supports her right to abortion in such situations, both as a matter of constitutional free exercise and moral principle. However, it must be reiterated that these cases are indeed extraordinary, rare exceptions to the rule that fetal life is entitled to protection.
We pray that today’s ruling will inspire all Americans to appreciate the moral magnitude of the abortion issue, and to embrace a culture that celebrates life.
Agudah apparently holds that preventing abortions in broader society is more important than Jewish women’s rights to halachically-permitted abortions.
In other words, for the sake of society as a whole, women whose pregnancies are a source of severe emotional distress should lose the opportunity to abortion (and be forced to carry on with the pregnancy), no matter what the emotional cost.
I am aware of teshuvos that discuss under what circumstances a woman would be allowed an abortion, but am not aware of any that say Jewish women would have to suffer in this way, for the sake of American society’s greater good.
I look forward to seeing a comprehensive written teshuva that details the halachic reasoning behind this.
Quote: “Agudah apparently holds that preventing abortions in broader society is more important than Jewish women’s rights to halachically-permitted abortions.”
THE AGUDAH STATEMENT NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!
On the contrary, it clearly pointed out, quote: “To be sure, there are certain extraordinary circumstances where our faith teaches that a woman should terminate her pregnancy. Agudath Israel fully supports her right to abortion in such situations, both as a matter of constitutional free exercise and moral principle.”
Of course though, at the same time, it equally reiterated, quote: “However, it must be reiterated that these cases are indeed extraordinary, rare exceptions to the rule that fetal life is entitled to protection.” For, as the statement continued and concluded with the overall goal, quote: “We pray that today’s ruling will inspire all Americans . . . . . . to embrace a culture that celebrates life.”
Thank you for your gracious and generous comment, “Do Not Lie.”
Now, please explain how to practically reconcile abortion being legally prohibited and its also being available.
Specifically, available to those for whom halacha allows abortion for (severe emotional distress, etc), but the government does not.
It is NOT legally prohibited! It is simply not a right protected by the constitution, meaning that any state wishing, based on the wishes of its citizens, may pass laws LIMITING its practice or perhaps prohibiting it. But the SCOTUS did not prohibit abortions. Period!
Now, please explain how to practically reconcile abortion being legally prohibited IN CERTAIN STATES and its also being available TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE STATES.
Specifically, available to those for whom halacha allows abortion for (severe emotional distress, etc), but the government does not.
(And before you tell me that “the community” will arrange for her to travel to another state, what if it’s a 15-year-old who doesn’t want her parents to find out? Will “the community” help her nevertheless?)
Idiot
Projecting?
The reasoning is simple albeit contrary to daas baalei batim. This ruling does NOT ban abortion. Abortions DO abort potential life. This ruling which defined abortion the absolute right of every woman who even willingly became pregnant, but decided she doesn’t want the baby, has been taken to its illogical conclusion that full-term abortions are also a right. What the Agudah is saying is that certainly many extenuating circumstances must be considered in any law any state should pass. But they are also saying that any statute which devalues life to the extent Roe did, is not the moral compass by which we want our host country to be guided by.
Thank you for your gracious and generous comment, “Anonymous.”
(To one commentator here, I am lying, but to you I am not lying, but burdened with “Da’as Ba’alei Battim.” I don’t know which judgment is more condescending, but thanks for the mussar!)
Yes, the ruling does not ban abortion.
However, it DOES open the door to its potentially being banned in circumstances where it would have otherwise been a halachic option.
Now, please explain how to practically reconcile abortion being legally prohibited and its also being available.
Specifically, how it would be available to those for whom halacha allows abortion for (severe emotional distress, etc), but the government does not.
And please forgive me for being such a weak-minded and illogical ba’al hayis!
We should be happy that murder is allowed, since in there’s a zero chance possibility that in the very rare instance where the infant is a risk to the mothers life the mother wouldn’t be able to save herself? No.
The leaders of the Agudah are teaching us that living in a country with limitless abortion rights as a constitutionally protected right is more dangerous to its society in general, and to ours in particular, than the possibility that we will find ourselves in one of the rare situations where abortions are justified while living in a state where receiving one will be impossible.
Thanks.
So we agree as regards to the Agudah statement.
Please look again at what I wrote above, in my original post:
“I am aware of teshuvos that discuss under what circumstances a woman would be allowed an abortion, but am not aware of any that say Jewish women would have to suffer in this way, for the sake of American society’s greater good.”
“I look forward to seeing a comprehensive written teshuva that details the halachic reasoning behind this.”
As one Ben Torah to another, I’m sure you as well would like to see the detailed halachic reasoning behind this interesting calculus.
And I had NO intention of being condescending in any way. Please forgive me for coming across that way. I grappled with this for some time, and came up with the same conclusion as you did; that abortions should not be made illegal. I was certain, that this opinion, our outlook on the matter, was in perfect sync with daas Torah. However, what I did not consider was the risk to society when the value of lice is so cheap. I defer to the Agudah.
Anonymous: Please see my comment above, as I see that you actually agree with me.
The headline is a bit confusing. All Torah Jews welcome the Supreme Court decision banning murder. Possibly Matzav (with the Agudah’s permission, as they paid for this to be posted) can edit the headline.
Not every piece of news warrants a comment. Chachamim Hizaharu B’divreichem.
(These two remarks from “Do Not Lie,” were posted in the PACIFIC TIME ZONE, when in that locality, the time was about TWO HOURS BEFORE SH’KIAH. So there was no, Chas V’Shalom any Chillul Shabbos.)
I would note that I’m also intrigued by the last paragraph, “We pray that today’s ruling will inspire all Americans to appreciate the moral magnitude of the abortion issue, and to embrace a culture that celebrates life.”
I had thought that the Supreme Court ruling hinged on a narrow constitutional issue of what rights are granted by the constitution and did not speak to moral issues.
I also had not noticed that the ruling has triggered moral rethinking by those who are “pro-choice.”
If anything, it has galvanized moral support for abortion.
Nor have I sensed that it has — or will — trigger a change in the “social ethic.”
But then again, maybe others have access to data that I am not privy to or perhaps too weak-minded to comprehend.