It is frequently pointed out to me (by non-spiritual types) that civilization needs to evolve and that religion -- with its unalterable principles and absolutist moral stance -- is gumming up the works. There tends to be an assumption that society, like the evolutionary process itself, is constantly getting better. The people who fancy themselves as stewards of this process self-identify as "progressives."
Though there is no shortage of chilling philosophical conclusions when nature and society are compared, one has to wonder if the evidence for humanity's progression is anything more than a mixed bag, and at worst, actually more regressive than anything else.
The ever optimistic Hegel was of the opinion that, "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom." He wrote these words in German approximately one century before his nation gleefully vivisected freedom across all of Europe. They did this, of course, in the name of "progress," which, as is well known, was in part inspired by the writings of Charles Darwin. When the natural world is your guide, then it is only logical, only natural, that those who are less fit should be allowed to move on -- and if a little nudge in that direction is needed, then so be it. More recently, some evolutionary thinkers, chaffed by the dissonance of some of the more uncomfortable Darwinian conclusions, have expended considerable energy contorting the theory to explain that those good and fuzzy values that we all know and love were part of the evolutionary plan all along. In their thinking, being nice confers an even greater evolutionary advantage than simply decimating the competition and making off with their resources (as Darwin originally suggested).
These ideas are, of course, much older than Hegel or Darwin. An intellect no less formidable than Aristotle was perfectly comfortable with holding the position that "There must be a law that no imperfect or maimed child shall be brought up. And to avoid an excess in population, some children must be exposed. For a limit must be fixed to the population of the state" (Politics VII.16). In as much as we have supposedly progressed, we mostly consider the idea of leaving the family's newborn on the trash heap to later be hauled out with the remainders of lunch, to be fairly abhorrent. Unfortunately, in absence of those irritating absolutist principles, bad ideas, like bathroom mold, have an insidious tendency to reemerge.
It was for that reason that I found the headline of an article from the Telegraph dated March 2 to be so jarring. It was entitled "Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say." Ah, you see, they are experts -- medical ethicists associated with Oxford University, no less -- so there's really no reason to get too worked up about it. As they correctly point out, the only real difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn child is its location! If we permit the "termination" in one locale then what exactly would be the problem to do it slightly later in another? Isn't this precisely the slippery slope that those crazy and dogmatic pro-lifers have warned about for so long? Once we set foot on that road, with nothing more than our Hegelian confidence in society as our road map, it is hard to know where it will end -- though in this case it would appear that we've actually been walking in a big circle the whole time, right back to Aristotle's "exposure" suggestion. No, we're not there yet, but the fact that "ethicists" could make these assertions with straight faces should send a cold shudder down every thinking person's back.
Aristotle was a genius, but he was immoral. In some sense he can't be blamed: He did his best with what he had. In fact, Jewish tradition has a degree of respect for him. In Maimonides' case, it's something more akin to a reverence -- he got so close! But there was a major difference between Aristotle's way of thinking and that of the founder of the monotheistic tradition. Abraham, also working in a vacuum, concluded that human life was intrinsically precious -- that there is infinite value in every soul and so to frivolously dispose of them in the name of population control, gender preference, convenience or women's rights is immoral.
In truth, the Jewish perspective on this matter is somewhat more nuanced than some other, more vocal religious systems out there. We hold that abortion is permitted when there is a significant physical or psychological danger to the mother. At that point, the fetus is classified as a "pursuer" -- one who is actively threatening another's life. For that reason, we would not favor the de-legalization of abortion. In these rare cases, abortion becomes the moral course of action. But to take another's life because it simply cramps your style, knowing that there is a line around the block of young couples who are aching to adopt, is a dubious matter indeed, and once we've sanctioned it, it's just a hop, skip and a jump away from the little Oxford Mengeles and their "ethics."
The abortion question is unique in its ability to generate two utterly disparate conceptions of the same act. Is it a procedure, similar to having a bunion removed, as one side would have it? Or is it the wholesale megadeath of the other? The question neatly exposes the need for guiding principles. If they are of the absolutist (Divine) variety then the answers are generally clear. If societally constructed, then the opinions of those doctors at Oxford are a simple matter of preference -- no better or worse than any other -- but ones that can create a world that permits virtually anything, including baby-killing.
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
Rabbi Daniel Brenner: Every Sperm Is Sacred? Jewish Perspectives on Contraception
This is sheer nonsense. You are simply muddling Darwinism (the theory of the origin of species) with Social Darwinism (the totalitarian political agenda). If Social Darwinism is what you mean, you should be honest and say so. Darwinism doesn't lead to any conclusions about what we ought to do, it merely explains how species have acquired their present forms.
(I'm over my word-limit: one more comment, continued above)
Infanticide: causing the death of a post-born baby. Like the herpes-riddled rabbi whose virus caused the death of a small child after a circumcision.
Even creepier, the family of the dead baby is stonewalling authorities seeking to identify the guy.
Anyway, that's infanticide.
I know a blastula from a gastrula. Or are you saying that babies start out whole and just get bigger, without ever going through the whole blastula stage?
Rabbi, your whole point of view is gravely warped by the fact that, in your whole purely theoretical exposee, you never take into account :
1. That you are not a woman and thus have no inkling of what it means to have an abortion (hormones, mothering instinct etc that make it a very hard choice on any woman), so your comparison to removing a bunyon is not only inappropriate, but insulting.
2. That the life of the adult, socially functioning human being (woman) is, as per your religion, at least as precious, if not more so, than the life of the potential human being (foetus that cannot survive by itself).
3. That you haven't even talked to a woman who had an abortion (for whatever reason, including lifethreatening condition) to gauge the profound psychological, physiological and social scars she sustained in the process, to give your article the least bit of realism.
So your whole lovely theory is worth nothing whatsoever, being the result of your male imagination, instead of a commentary on real facts.
There is a passage in the Bible that states, What good is it to gain the whole world but lose ones soul!
How does that statement not make sense? We have thought and moral value and justify death for sake of supposed monetary confort?
To all, good luck with that after life experience!
Keep in mind that you are a man saying these things.
The fetus is an individual organism within another individual organism.
When restricting the conditions for termination of this life one is also restricting the body that holds this life.
"[w]hen there is a significant physical or psychological danger to the mother. . ."
How does one know that there is such a danger? Who can accurately predict postpartum depression? What is the risk of PPD in unwanted pregnancies? If there is a risk of PPD in an unwanted pregnancy, then the mother is in danger. Wouldn't this warrant an abortion according to Jewish law?
"But to take another's life because it simply cramps your style,. . ."
Alas, it is never so simple as that. Who are you to judge the circumstances of another human being and simply regard it as cramping one's style?
Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was.
Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3) This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200906/article_02.htm
40% of fertilized eggs will fail to implant in the uterine wall.
Another 30% will spontaneously abort.
And what of the unaborted, yet unwanted child? There's little help and the government wants to provide even less. Is there any rational reason why you people quit caring as soon as the little miracle is dropped?
But, there are literally thousands of babies who do not fit that bill who will never be adopted. Right or wrong this is a fact.
There are also thousand of children who are wards of state, removed from their birth parents for all sorts of reasons that will also never be adopted, because they are neither babies nor are most of them free from some sort of psychological issues related to their former lives with their birth parent(s).
Then let's consider too, how burdened states already are financially by the unwanted/uncared for children that are already their wards. Should we just consider that it's fine to keep adding to this list without coming up with a way to actually HELP these children. You want to abolish abortion except in cases where the mother's life is in danger, fine. But, you don't get to do without the consider the children who are ALREADY in need.
I'm sorry Rabbi, your position is naive.
- Overcoming Adoption’s Racial Barriers by Lynette Clemets and Ron Nixon, The New York Times, August 17, 2006
Abraham concluded that human life had value? Before he put Isaac on the altar, or after god gave him the big "Just kidding!"
I don't think these medical ethicists will get very far with their idea. Even atheists find human life to be of value and a living child can be cared for by someone other than the mother. One inside the womb cannot, and it is not medically defensible to force surgery for a "transplant" even if it were possible. There is a definite change of status involved, one of several that happen in utero and if you actually wanted reasoned discussion we could talk about them.
So Rabbi, if human life is so precious, how many unwanted babies have you adopted?
And the Rabbi might like to downplay the role of progress in civilization, but it's undoubtedly true that there has been progress. We chose our own leaders, which was long opposed by religion, including the Rabbi's. We don't keep slaves, a practice endorsed in the holiest books of the Rabbi's religion. We no longer claim ownership rights over women or prohibit them from forming their own opinions. Many of the Rabbi's faith would like to see women put back into a submissive place. The religious will always try to claw their way back to the way things were.
I am not a moral relativist like the Rabbi is. If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong when the Hebrews practiced it. If killing and rape are wrong now, they were wrong when Moses ordered the massacre of Midianites including their babies and the rape of their virgin girls. If forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is wrong now, it was wrong then. It's a good thing the Rabbi went to school so he knows which of these rules can be ignored, even though god has always been right and just.
Now it should be made clear that of the 32000 virgin slave girls, the Army soldiers only got 16,000, the children of Israel got 15968 and God got 32. I don't know if that means the 32 became slaves of the priesthood or if they were given as an offering to God the way a goat would be. If I were in their place, I might prefer the latter.
If you're going to be quoting and discussing these matters, you really need to learn the background and methodology of Torah exegesis - otherwise you're just manipulating words you don't understand to suit a pre-conceived bias.
Like declaring Thou Shall Not Kill, then turning around and committing mass murder? Take away the acts of bloodshed (including infanticide and abortion) done by God and the Israelites and the OT becomes as flimsy as a comic book.
The Bible tells us to kill homosexuals and women who have sex outside of marriage, to practice slavery and polygamy. We horrible "progressives" do indeed think we should "evolve" beyond such commandments. And so do people like you, despite your insistence that the old ways were better.
Can you name any widespread rule of ethics and show where it is ultimately derived from in history? And can you name anything positive that the Torah has done for the world?
No, I can't name a single positive thing any religion has done for the world that could not have been done without religion. Religion is a con game.