5
edits
Abortion: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
Jackbauer24 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
# An issue can also arise when the fetus in question would be born a Mamzer, a child from an illegitimate sexual relationship. Because of the adulterous affair the woman is deserving of the death penalty. Since the fetus is a part of the mother, and not it’s own entity, it too is technically liable for the death penalty and one can therefore, according to Rav Yaakov Emden, abort it. <ref> Sheelas Yaavetz Teshuvah 43, Rav Emden</ref> | # An issue can also arise when the fetus in question would be born a Mamzer, a child from an illegitimate sexual relationship. Because of the adulterous affair the woman is deserving of the death penalty. Since the fetus is a part of the mother, and not it’s own entity, it too is technically liable for the death penalty and one can therefore, according to Rav Yaakov Emden, abort it. <ref> Sheelas Yaavetz Teshuvah 43, Rav Emden</ref> | ||
# A question arises if the mother will experience severe mental distress if the baby is born. Rabbi Waldenberg holds that abortion is not murder at all, and that mental distress can be equated with physical pain. Therefore, abortion would be allowed if one’s rabbi determines that the mental stress is the same as the physical would be. <ref> Ẓiẓ Eliezer, 13:102; 14:101</ref> Rabbi Unterman takes a similar approach to the issue. Rabbi Unterman does believe that abortion is considered akin to murder, and therefore cannot be allowed in cases of mental anguish. However, if the psychological distress that the mother would feel would cause suicidal tendencies, Rabbi Unterman would permit abortion. <ref> “The Law of Pikkuah Nefesh and Its definition” in HaTorah V’HaM’dinah, IV (1952) 22 - 29 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law. Rabbi Unterman is basing his ruling on a ruling by a case where a where a rabbi was asked if a man could have non kosher soup to prevent him from going insane. Rabbi Israel Meir Mizrachi ruled that serious danger to one’s mental health is the same as a risk to one’s physical health. Resp. Pri HaAretz, Vol III (Jerusalem, 1899), Y.D., No. 2. This ruling was also applied to a specific situation that dealt with birth control, a situation more similar to abortion than non kosher soup. Resp. Binyan David, No. 68; Minhat Yitzchak, Vol. I, No. 115; and Igg’rot Mosheh, E.H., No. 65, would allow the contraceptive mokh when pregnancy would create a serious mental-health risk as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law</ref> | # A question arises if the mother will experience severe mental distress if the baby is born. Rabbi Waldenberg holds that abortion is not murder at all, and that mental distress can be equated with physical pain. Therefore, abortion would be allowed if one’s rabbi determines that the mental stress is the same as the physical would be. <ref> Ẓiẓ Eliezer, 13:102; 14:101</ref> Rabbi Unterman takes a similar approach to the issue. Rabbi Unterman does believe that abortion is considered akin to murder, and therefore cannot be allowed in cases of mental anguish. However, if the psychological distress that the mother would feel would cause suicidal tendencies, Rabbi Unterman would permit abortion. <ref> “The Law of Pikkuah Nefesh and Its definition” in HaTorah V’HaM’dinah, IV (1952) 22 - 29 as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law. Rabbi Unterman is basing his ruling on a ruling by a case where a where a rabbi was asked if a man could have non kosher soup to prevent him from going insane. Rabbi Israel Meir Mizrachi ruled that serious danger to one’s mental health is the same as a risk to one’s physical health. Resp. Pri HaAretz, Vol III (Jerusalem, 1899), Y.D., No. 2. This ruling was also applied to a specific situation that dealt with birth control, a situation more similar to abortion than non kosher soup. Resp. Binyan David, No. 68; Minhat Yitzchak, Vol. I, No. 115; and Igg’rot Mosheh, E.H., No. 65, would allow the contraceptive mokh when pregnancy would create a serious mental-health risk as cited in David Feldman, Birth Control In Jewish Law</ref> | ||
== Stem Cell Research == | |||
Stem cell research is a very sensitive and contemporary topic therefore many Poskim have yet to offer clear rulings. These are some of the important factors that one must take into consideration regarding stem-cell research. | |||
#Is in vitro fertilization permitted to begin with? | |||
Most authorities permit In-vitro Fertilization.<ref>Yitzchak Bretowitz, “The Pre-Embryo in halacha”</ref> This is because it is not considered spilling the seed due to the fact that the long term goal of In- Vitro fertilization is to create life. | |||
#May a very early embryo be sacrificed for stem cells that could save lives or at least cure disease? | |||
Most authorities would permit it for three reasons. 1. Even an implanted embryo before forty days of gestation is considered by some authorities not to be a life at all. <ref>Based on Yevamot 69b which refers to a pre 40 day fetus as “merely water” </ref> | |||
2. An unimplanted embryo may as well be considered not a life at all because it is outside of the womb.<ref>Yitzchak Bretowitz, “The Pre-Embryo in halacha”</ref> 3. Given that destroying a unimplanted pre forty day embryo is almost certainly not considered murder, the lifesaving potential of stem cell research can be considered the more important value. | |||
# May we fertilize ova specifically to create an embryo to be sacrificed for stem cells? | |||
Many authorities are uncomfortable with this procedure ethical even if it is unclear whether there is a specific halachic prohibition. <ref> Othodox Union (2001) Letter to President Bush Regarding Stem Cell Research </ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
