 |
| Pro choice & pro life demonstrators outside the Supreme Court last year (Politico) |
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Even though I lean politically conservative, I find this news troubling. I don't think abortions should be made illegal... or even subject to conditions imposed by the government. Even if they coincide with my religious views. Because that would have the potential violating of my religious rights. Halacha allows abortions in certain cases. Which may or may not coincide with the exceptions provided by law. It seems to me that the procedure should be kept entirely legal so that people of faith can make decisions based on their religious teachings if they so choose. This is why I have always been in the pro choice camp.
But not because of the arguments I often hear from that camp. I find the arguments put forth by the pro choice camp to be extremely selfish and morally reprehensible. In that sense I agree with the pro life camp.
The typical argument I hear from that side is that a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body. Well she should. Except that in the case of an abortion, there is another body to consider: The fetus. Which is a potential life if carried to full term. The pro choice attitude seems to be that potential life hardly matters. The only thing to consider is what the woman wants. If her pregnancy is unwanted, she should have right to abort the fetus. And then get on with her life.I have heard arguments for an abortion made because of career considerations. Having a child may end a career. Why should a woman be denied that choice when a simple medical procedure can take care of the problem? And then there are those that use abortion as a form of birth control - having become pregnant in a casual sexual relationship. I don't know how common that is. But it certainly exists. I find that decisions based on factors like these to be morally reprehensible.
Abortions that are permitted by Halacha are mostly those in which the life of the mother is endangered by a continued pregnancy. That not only makes it permitted, it makes it mandatory. There are other possible reasons to permit an abortion. But a career choice is not one of them. In this sense I agree more with the pro life camp.
To be clear, Judaism does not consider life to begin at conception - as does Christianity. In fact during the first forty days after conception a fetus is euphemistically referred to as plain water. But after that, the fetus is Kodesh MiBeten - having sanctity of being a Jew by virtue of being in the womb of a Jewish woman. Sanctity that remains after birth and for the rest of his or her life. No matter how much they might sin. Even if at some point a conversion out of Judaism is attempted. They nevertheless remain holy as a Jew.
A Jewish woman that wants to terminate a pregnancy for selfish reasons ignores that sanctity. The right to do with one's own body whatever they choose should not come at the cost of destroying a potential life. Treating it like little more than an inconvenience is in my view morally wrong. Something that in good conscience I cannot agree with - even as I agree with the goal of leaving abortion completely legal.
I suppose this is the reason that communal advocacy groups like Agudah often side with the pro life camp albeit with reservations depending on the specific case.
If abortions are limited to moral considerations, what about all the unwanted pregnancies' that will result? Will there be a return to back alley abortions that can result in permanent injuries or death? And what about all the unwanted children that will be born and not raised properly because of it? Which - may end up with those children turning to a life of crime? Wouldn't it be better to allow abortion on demand for that reason alone?
If that were the only concern then of course the answer is yes. But aborting to prevent that does not make it the morally right decision. And that is not the only reason not to abort.
I don't think it's a coincidence that abortion rights were granted just after the advent of the pill and the sexual revolution of the late sixties that followed. That revolution surely increased unwanted pregnancies'. Getting an abortion became more significant than ever. Unwanted pregnancies carried to term would have surely put a crimp in that revolution
There was a time where a pregnancy out of wedlock was considered shameful. Today it is hardly sneezed at. The attitude seems to be, 'You got pregnant by virtue of casual sex?' 'No big deal.' 'There is an abortion clinic not far form here and you can take care of it'.
Not that getting an abortion is taken so lightly by people in that situation. Often the decision is to carry it to full term. But there is a reason so many abortion clinics exist. It is apparently a very common procedure - often for less than altruistic reasons.
Nevertheless, it is imperative that abortion remain safe, legal, and rare (to quote former President Clinton). Even if it contributes to abortions for the wrong reasons. It is the lesser of two evils and the right thing to do. Therefore even though I agree with their sentiments, I hope the Supreme Court does not strike down Roe v Wade. At the end of the day, it is the wrong move.
