“First World problems” is a term recently popularized on the Internet to designate the frustrations and complaints that are only experienced by privileged individuals in wealthy countries. A prime example is the bizarre reaction to Siri, the new iPhone’s intelligent personal assistant app. If you ask Siri, “Where can I get an abortion?” the digital assistant currently responds with, “I don’t see any abortion clinics. Sorry about that.”
Because a depressingly signficant number of people were freaked out by the idea that a phone app might not be pro-choice, the CEO of one of history’s greatest tech companies felt the need to issue a mea culpa. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook offered an apology to Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, because a “glitch” on the phone did not direct people to abortion clinics. As Dave Barry would say, “I’m not making this up.”
From the news coverage this has received, you’d think that one of the most pressing issues in America is that women who want to kill their unborn child have to endure the horrific inconvenience of pressing a button on their smartphone and using Google to search for the location of the nearest abortion mill.
While the Siri-abortion controversy wins the prize for the week’s most inane First World problem, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a former president of Chicago Theological Seminary, gets credit for the most creative. Proving once again that there is no theological claim too dumb to be advanced in the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section, Thistlethwaite claims that when Jesus says “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” he intended this to include student loan debt:
The kind of moral equality that Jesus asks us to pray for in the Lord’s Prayer can be seen in Applebaum’s argument. Jesus calls on us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” Forgive and be forgiven. Americans are tied together in this student debt debacle, and debt forgiveness will help the forgivers as well as those forgiven.
And in case anyone misses her point, she spells it out clearly:
Currently, I’m advocating debt forgiveness. It is the moral thing to do and it is the right civic thing to do. This is what Jesus actually meant; real debts, real debtors, forgiving and forgiven.
As Doug Bandow says, in a cheeky bit of understatement, “It’s a novel interpretation, never before proposed in the two millenia since Jesus walked the earth.” Indeed, perhaps that is because the word sometimes translated as “debts” (ὀφειλήματα) does not necessarily mean financial obligations, but is used to refer to sin. It is simply not plausible to claim that what Jesus meant was that we should forgive actual financial obligations just as God has forgiven the financial obligations we owe to him.
Thistlethwaite’s bio notes that she has a Ph.D. and a Masters of Divinity from Duke and has “worked on two different translations of the bible.” Her misuse of the term cannot be attributed to a lack of education, so what could be the reason? I suspect she may take a postmodern view of language in which words mean whatever you need them to mean in order to support your viewpoint. The only other reason I can think of is that she is intentionally being deceptive because she knows that the typical On Faith reader (secular, liberal, atheistic) isn’t going to know any better, much less care whether she is accurately conveying Jesus’ meaning.
What matters to them is that someone, somewhere (i.e., them or their children) borrowed money to get a degree that would aid in their self-actualization, only to discover that they did not prepare themselves for the actual job market. But they are the First World exceptions. As economist Judith Scott-Clayton notes, “Only one-tenth of 1 percent of college entrants, and only three-tenths of 1 percent of bachelor’s degree recipients, accumulate more than $100,000 in undergraduate student debt. If you have more than $75,000 in undergraduate debt, you are the 1 percent – just not the 1 percent you might have been hoping for.” She also points out that “most of those with that much debt have graduate degrees; it is difficult to accumulate that much debt in an undergraduate program.”
First Worlders who went in hock to get a Master of Divinity from Chicago Theological Seminary, only to discover the creative exegesis taught by the Rev. Dr. Thistlethwaite isn’t particularly useful in the real world, may naturally want to say to the American taxpayer: “forgive our debts.” Unfortunately for them, accumulating student loan debt for getting a graduate degree is the type of First World problem that isn’t likely to evoke sympathy from those struggling to pay their mortgage.
Whether we like it or not, enjoying the benefits of living in the First World sometimes means living with First World problems—including the most persistent First World problem of all: Having to listen to people whine about their annoying First World problems.
Joe Carter is the web editor of First Things. You can follow him on Twitter.
December 2nd, 2011 | 9:40 am
The iphone story is a non-story. You don’t search for an abortion clinic, you search for a reproductive health or women’s clinic. Also, Steve Jobs was pro-choice. There isn’t some iphone pro-life conspiracy.
But since we bring up the First World, women having full reproductive freedom is one of the hallmarks of a First World country. If you look at a map of the world based upon abortion laws, you’ll find that just about every 1st world country has legal or de-facto legal abortion, and most 3rd world countries prohibits it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
December 2nd, 2011 | 10:11 am
“Reproductive Freedom” – what a nice Orwellian phrase.
Don’t you love it when we use language to obscure rather than to reveal?
December 2nd, 2011 | 10:49 am
I think I’ll trade universal human rights for “reproductive freedom,” thanks.
December 2nd, 2011 | 10:53 am
Over the gate to Auschwitz: “Arbeit macht frei” (work makes you free)
Over the door to the clinic where women exercise the “reproductive freedom” to which MichaelB alludes: “Todesfall macht frei” (death makes you free)
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:43 am
Well said, Steve.
Reminds me of a “release” in The Giver by Lois Lowry. God help us when we call evil good.
“Planned Parenthood” falls under that same category of unhelpful (read: deceptive) titles.
December 2nd, 2011 | 11:55 am
Interestingly, most of the first world countries became first world countries when abortion was not considered a human right, and religion had a stronger place in society. (19th-early 20th centuries)
By contrast, abortion was generally legal in many communist countries (Romania a notable exception), and their living standards were never even close to first world. In many cases, living standards notably declined, despite the availability of abortion.
December 2nd, 2011 | 1:30 pm
If B of A will forgive my mortgage, I’ll forgive them for wrecking the global economy.
December 2nd, 2011 | 1:31 pm
Call it whatever you like, but you’ll find in most First World countries, women are afforded a certain number of rights. It includes the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to be educated, the right not to be forced into a marriage, and finally the right not to be pregnant against her will. Unless there is some radical change in how the American public views women, don’t expect Roe vs. Wade to be challenged any time soon. You can continue to expect a choice between a pro-choice president and a defacto pro-choice president, as it is every presidential election in recent times. (And if you think Ronald Reagan wasn’t pro-choice, bear in mind that he signed one of the most radical pro-choice bills when he was governor of California, paving the way for Roe. vs. Wade.)
Democratic leaders are unashamedly pro-choice. Republicans need all the votes they can get, so they aren’t going to let the pro-life platform go, but Republican leaders treat pro-lifers like a man treats an ugly mistress. She satisfies certain needs, but he’s ashamed of her and wouldn’t want anyone to see him in public with her. The really hard-core pro-lifers would make a woman bear her rapist’s child if she became pregnant. In defense of Republican leaders, it’s a position worth being ashamed of.
December 2nd, 2011 | 1:54 pm
“and finally the right not to be pregnant against her will.”
And rape is also illegal. Once pregnancy occurs, it’s too late for her “not to be pregnant” — all you can do is kill off the child. But you just want to deny females as well as men the right not to be killed before birth. So you want fewer rights for women. Call it whatever you like, though.
“Republican leaders treat pro-lifers like a man treats an ugly mistress. She satisfies certain needs, but he’s ashamed of her and wouldn’t want anyone to see him in public with her.”
Now I can’t argue with that. It doesn’t, however, change the question of abortion itself. It just shows what opportunistic louses too many Republican politicians are.
“The really hard-core pro-lifers would make a woman bear her rapist’s child if she became pregnant.”
Yep, really hard-core pro-lifers don’t believe in executing helpless children for their fathers’ crimes. So anti-human rights, we are.
December 2nd, 2011 | 3:07 pm
[...] First World Problems [...]
December 2nd, 2011 | 4:02 pm
Also an irritating First World problem–on Swype, if you attempt to text the word “accordianist” (as I often need to with some musician friends), Swype autocorrects it to read “abortionist.” What a world we’ve made.
December 2nd, 2011 | 7:07 pm
[...] Find the whole article by clicking here. [...]
December 2nd, 2011 | 10:54 pm
Call it whatever you like, but you’ll find in most First World countries, women are afforded a certain number of rights. It includes the right to vote, the right to hold public office, the right to be educated, the right not to be forced into a marriage, and finally the right not to be pregnant against her will.
“The right to not be pregnant against her will”.
I love how the abortion argument relies on suggesting pregnancy is a thing that happens to a woman – as if the woman were just minding her own business when this baby came along and invaded her.
Sexual freedom includes responsibility. Men don’t get to simply decide after the fact that they don’t want anything to do with the baby they made, so why should women? Because feminism is about the fantasy that women don’t have to grow up: they are entitled to all the privileges of adulthood, but it’s mean (stamp foot) to hold them to the same standard as men.
The problem with this is that people who don’t accept responsibility also forfeit respect. Women who kill their children can’t really claim childhood as an excuse – and telling them they can is such a cruel lie, you have to wonder at the real motives of people who claim that this is about what’s good for women. It’s not what’s good for women. Who really benefits?
December 3rd, 2011 | 1:39 am
@ Michael B, who writes that a woman has a “right to not be pregnant against her will”. Michael, why do you abortion rights advocates always speak in euphemisms? Have the courage to speak your convictions candidly man. When abortion rights activists start saying what they really mean — women should have the right to kill their children so long as they are not yet born — I will take your arguments more seriously.
By the way, birth seems like an arbitrary demarcation to me. Why are you so timid? You embrace death but also try to hold it at arm’s length. Why don’t you go for it and advocate for the right to kill children of any age if they become inconvenient to their mother? If dead children are the answer, why do you tolerate any limits on the right to kill them?
December 4th, 2011 | 8:32 pm
“Also, Steve Jobs was pro-choice.”
This reminds me of a sign I once saw that said, “Everyone who supported slavery was free. Everyone who supports abortion was born.”
December 4th, 2011 | 9:55 pm
“The really hard-core pro-lifers would make a woman bear her rapist’s child if she became pregnant.”
Yep, really hard-core pro-lifers don’t believe in executing helpless children for their fathers’ crimes. So anti-human rights, we are.
Just for the record, I would be okay with transferring the baby to a surrogate’s womb.
Especially in case of rape.
The goal is not to make women suffer. The goal is to build a world where every human being has the right to not be murdered.
The world will be better when we stop trying to find ways to legitimize exceptions to our best rules.
December 5th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
So if the debt forgiveness thing comes to pass, will I be refunded the $50,000 bucks I’ve already paid back?
December 5th, 2011 | 4:08 pm
“Pro-life,” when the real meaning is “anti-abortion,” is just as Orwellian a term as anything abortion advocates have come up with.
When abortion rights activists start saying what they really mean — women should have the right to kill their children so long as they are not yet born — I will take your arguments more seriously.
When you recast the position of those you disagree with in your own terms, you have stated your own position, not theirs. The reason those who are pro-abortion don’t speak of “the right to kill . . . children so long as they are not yet born” is because they do not acknowledge the unborn as “children” in the way “pro-lifers” use the term. You may vehemently disagree with them, but you have no right to put your own words in their mouths. If I oppose capital punishment (which I do), I have no right to say, “Supporters of capital punishment claim the state has the right to murder people convicted of certain crimes.” Supporters of capital punishment do not claim the state has the right to murder. Supporters of abortion do not claim a woman has the right to kill her children.
December 5th, 2011 | 7:24 pm
“Pro-life,” when the real meaning is “anti-abortion,” is just as Orwellian a term as anything abortion advocates have come up with.
The difference between pro-life vs. anti-abortion is that the person who opposes abortion is opposed to one type of murder; a pro-life person is opposed to all types of murder.
But if you believe abortion is murder, then there is no contradiction: “anti-abortion” is a subcategory of “pro-life”.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to conjure up the usual lefty straw man – nobody really cares about the sanctity of life issue, we just all hate women and want them to suffer. Maybe there are even people left on the Left who actually believe in this?
December 5th, 2011 | 9:31 pm
David
“Pro-life,” when the real meaning is “anti-abortion,” is just as Orwellian a term as anything abortion advocates have come up with.
Indeed, as is trying to recast ‘pro-choice’ as ‘pro-abortion’. This is especially galling since we have a real life example of a country that is (or at least was) pro-abortion…namely China. A pro-abortion gov’t not only allows ‘choice’ but mandates abortion. There are some in the US who even express pro-abortion opinions from the right (anyone who calls a radio talk show saying things like “the gov’t should make any woman on welfare get an abortion if she gets pregnant” is expressing a pro-abortion position that is distinctly different than simply leaving abortion in the hands of women).
As a general rule, I would say attempt to recast the language in a debate in a way that obscures the spectrum should be viewed as suspect.
December 6th, 2011 | 12:31 am
Unless, of course, you’re trying to conjure up the usual lefty straw man – nobody really cares about the sanctity of life issue, we just all hate women and want them to suffer.
Blake,
You said this. I didn’t. I said, “’Pro-life,’ when the real meaning is ‘anti-abortion,’ is just as Orwellian a term as anything abortion advocates have come up with.” Of course, it is much easier for you to criticize, “Nobody really cares about the sanctity of life issue, they just all hate women and want them to suffer.” The problem is, I didn’t say that and would never say or even imply that. It sounds very much like something you might say to criticize the pro-life movement if you supported the right to abortion, which of course you don’t. But it’s not the kind of thing I say.
December 6th, 2011 | 11:58 am
You said this. I didn’t. I said, “’Pro-life,’ when the real meaning is ‘anti-abortion,’ is just as Orwellian a term as anything abortion advocates have come up with.”
There is nothing Orwellian about pro-life being anti-abortion.
You want to rephrase “pro-life” to mean “hates women”, but that’s not true: the motive here is not a desire to punish women, but rather a belief that life is and must be treated as sacred.
Pro-life means anti-abortion, PLUS it means anti-all the other ways in which humanists want to encroach on the sanctity of life.
From my perspective, you’re the one trying to be Orwellian.
Just for the record, I don’t think pro-choice is really all that Orwellian either: pro-choice means people want to believe that whether the baby is a human or trash is a “choice” – specifically, the fantasy that a mother can “choose” what sort of thing her baby is or is not. The tragedy of it is that of course it’s not a real choice – and it is the women who is supposedly being “helped” or “protected” who suffers the most, when she is lied to by people whose agenda is not really about helping women.
But it is a tendency of pro-choicers to pretend to be about “helping” women, when really their agenda doesn’t care at all about the well-being of the women they manipulate – show them a study that suggests many women are harmed by abortion, and they don’t even consider changing their position: they are pro-abortion, and “choice” is a euphemism for abortion – they don’t mean “choice” as in the choice of whether to keep your baby nearly so much as they mean “choice” in the sense that you can “choose” whether the baby is of value or not, whether it is human or not.
I have wondered in the past if this essential dishonesty is why pro-choicers always project their own dishonesty onto the pro-life movement: since so many of them are really about removing babies they view as excess and unwanted, they assume that their opposites on the other side of the ideological aisle must be primarily about punishing women.
December 6th, 2011 | 1:10 pm
You want to rephrase “pro-life” to mean “hates women”,
Blake has made a very specific charge against David here. I challenge Blake to cite exactly where David has said this or else retract the false claim.
December 6th, 2011 | 2:23 pm
Pro-life means anti-abortion, PLUS it means anti-all the other ways in which humanists want to encroach on the sanctity of life.
“Pro-life” should describe a position very similar or identical to what Cardinal Bernardin called the “consistent ethic of life,” which Wikipedia describes as follows:
If you are opposed to abortion but don’t want to do anything to help poor mothers take care of poor they did not abort, then you are anti-abortion, not pro-life. Life isn’t the moment of conception or the moment of birth. Life goes on until death. Caring about the unborn and not caring about the “post-born” is not pro-life. It’s anti-abortion. Being pro-life requires caring not just about the unborn making it to term, but what happens to them as children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. It requires, in my opinion, opposing capital punishment and unjust wars. Also, animals are alive. Someone who is truly pro-life would be concerned about the unnecessary suffering of animals raised for human uses. It might possibly even involve being a vegetarian, or at least seriously considering it.
So some people who call themselves pro-life may indeed be pro-life, but it requires a lot more than opposing abortion. How many people who call themselves pro-life also oppose capital punishment. How many of them opposed the war in Iraq? How many of them oppose torture? You can’t be in favor of torture and call yourself pro-life.
December 6th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
Blake has made a very specific charge against David here.
Boonton,
It might be serious but for the fact that I get the impression you and I are the only ones who pay any attention to him.
December 6th, 2011 | 3:22 pm
Nonetheless, accusations are serious business. One shouldn’t make them unless he can stand by them, or publically retract them if he finds himself in error. If we are the only ones who bother listening to him, well it’s still a good thing that he learns to apply that lesson to his writing. Maybe others will actually start reading him if he does.
December 6th, 2011 | 3:50 pm
David Nickol,
Assuming you are married, would you allow your wife to abort your own child? Why or why not?
December 6th, 2011 | 6:43 pm
Assuming you are married, would you allow your wife to abort your own child? Why or why not?
Caleb Herod,
I am not married, but if I were married, I would expect that my wife and I would share the same view of something as fundamental as abortion, particularly when it involves a child we conceive together. So it would not be a matter of “allowing” (or not allowing) my wife to do something. The view I assume we would share is that while abortion is not “murder,” it involves the death of a living thing and a potential human person and should not be resorted to except for the most serious of reasons. If a pregnancy posed a risk to my wife’s life, I would not hesitate to approve an abortion. Perhaps there might be a less weighty reason than that for which I would agree to abortion, although I can’t think of any. “We already have all the kids we want and can afford” would not be anywhere near a sufficient reason for abortion.
December 7th, 2011 | 1:53 am
[it is] a living thing and a potential human person
David,
I am having difficulty determining if you answered my question. My best guess is that, based on the above statement, you reject the premise that your wife would be carrying your “child”–in open disregard for how the word has historically been used. (Would “progeny” or “offspring” be sufficiently sterile terms?)
In any case, the child is a human being as a matter of biological fact. Perhaps you wish to make the distinction between humans that are persons, and those that are not? I hope you see the basic problem with this: that some human beings are inventing criteria by which to exclude other human beings from “personhood”.
Also, I do not understand your use of, and especially emphasis on, the word “potential”. As I see it, this could have two almost contradictory meanings. Either “potential person” means “not really a person, but maybe someday”, or it means “it might now be a person, but who knows?” You either believe the child is not a person, or you think he might be but you’re not sure. Which one is it?
What criteria do you believe are sufficient to disqualify a human being from personhood?
December 7th, 2011 | 10:02 am
Caleb Herod,
Exactly what do you want from me? I gave as honest an answer as I could come up with, this being a hypothetical for me. The position I took basically amounts to “no abortion unless my wife’s life is in danger.” Assuming you are “pro-life,” I suspect that mine is a more strict anti-abortion position than that of most of the “pro-life” politicians you would be prepared to vote for.
You either believe the child is not a person, or you think he might be but you’re not sure. Which one is it?
My current position, always subject to change, is that an embryo or fetus without a brain/nervous system functioning at a certain level cannot be considered a person in a meaningful sense (unless it can be demonstrated that it has a spiritual soul). However, it is a living being (a human being, if you insist) and may not be deprived of life except in the most serious of circumstances. If I had to choose between an abortion to save my wife’s life and no intervention, resulting in both the loss of my wife and the baby she was carrying, I would choose abortion.
Jewish law does not consider the unborn to be persons. The idea of a “potential person” is not something I invented:
December 7th, 2011 | 11:48 am
David,
Can you see any contradiction in appealing to “Jewish law” (whatever that might be — as you have left your source uncited) in defining something you want to call “potential human life” and at the same time requiring that those who would call themselves “pro-life” subscribe to everything that wikipedia says a Catholic Bishop insists is contained in an “consistent ethic of life” or risk being labeled (by you, at least) as merely “anti-abortion”?
That is, if Bernardin (or the Magisterium or whomever) is authoritative on what it means to be “pro life” why does one need to turn to some other authority for a definition of when said life is to be granted “personhood”?
The clear position of the Catholic Church is that life/personhood begins at conception: the Catechism states: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.” (2270) and “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.” (2275)
Thus it seems to me that by your own lights, you cannot really call yourself “pro life” (at least based upon your definition). Or am I missing something here?
December 7th, 2011 | 12:23 pm
an embryo or fetus without a brain/nervous system functioning at a certain level cannot be considered a person in a meaningful sense
This is only because your dualistic concept of “person” is contingent on some criterion other than that the child is a human being. Why single out the brain/nervous system? Because it is an attempt to fake people out into thinking that your criterion is purely physiological and therefore grounded in science. In reality you believe certain components must first be present for “ensoulment” to take place, which is not falsifiable and is a matter of metaphysical speculation.
And why the requirement that it function at some arbitrary level? No doubt you, a human being, believe the threshold for brain function should be set fairly low, as I imagine that you would consider killing imbeciles to be unethical (or, at the very least, unsporting). So the bar has to be set (by humans) low enough that all born humans (and maybe even some unborn humans) are able to clear it. And you must be careful that your chosen threshold does not inadvertantly put unconscious or comatose grown-ups in peril.
unless it can be demonstrated that it has a spiritual soul
That’s categorically impossible. (I wonder what “soul” smells like?)
a human being, if you insist
My insistence has no bearing on genetic reality.
The idea of a “potential person” is not something I invented
I was not accusing you of originality. You obviously believe the word to be an essential qualifier, so I was hoping you would clarify the idea you meant to convey with its use.
And I fail to see how the unsourced blockquote of some guy’s commentary on the Talmud’s ostensible thumbs-up to partial birth abortion is relevant.
December 7th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
david c,
I am not endorsing Catholic doctrine. I am endorsing the idea of the consistent ethic of life. If you want to claim to be “pro-life,” you have to do more than oppose abortion. You have to, in some serious and consistent way, care about all life. The Catholic and Jewish ideas of when life (personhood) begin are different, but I don’t think an “orthodox” Catholic has a right to accuse an Orthodox Jew of not being “pro-life” or anti-abortion because Jewish tradition values the life of the mother more highly than the life of the unborn.
No two people who subscribe to the consistent ethic of life may be in 100% agreement. One person may oppose all capital punishment. Another may find some limited uses of it justifiable. One person may believe that animal life cannot be respected without becoming a vegetarian or a vegan, whereas another might not become a vegan but try to buy meat and animal products from sources that raise the animals humanely.
I think being truly “pro-life” (in the sense of following a consistent ethic of life) is immensely difficult. I think being pro-life is like being humble or virtuous. It’s something you strive for to whatever degree you can, knowing that everyone will fall short.
December 7th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
Caleb Herod,
You seem annoyed or angry, and I have no desire to get into yet another emotional debate on abortion on this blog or any other. The ground has been covered endlessly in forums like this. Also, there are two definitive books: The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice by Christopher Kaczor (opposed) and A Defense of Abortion by David Boonin (in favor). I can only presume that any argument you or I make will be addressed in both of those books. I’m here to discuss, and even to argue, but not to fight.
December 7th, 2011 | 2:09 pm
This is only because your dualistic concept of “person” is contingent on some criterion other than that the child is a human being. Why single out the brain/nervous system?
Most people are justly skeptical of the claim that you can be a human being and lack a brain. A live human who loses his brain is usually considered officially dead, even if other organs may still be maintained by machines and such for a time.
And why the requirement that it function at some arbitrary level? No doubt you, a human being, believe the threshold for brain function should be set fairly low, as I imagine that you would consider killing imbeciles to be unethical (or, at the very least, unsporting). So the bar has to be set (by humans) low enough that all born humans (and maybe even some unborn humans) are able to clear it.
You’re confusing, I think, a binary function with a sliding scale function. Whatever the ‘threshold’ is, once you meet it you’re in and you don’t get any less or any more for being ‘in the club’. An analogy might be citizenship and voting. If you’re a citizen, you can vote. If you’re a ‘really good citizen’ you don’t get 1.5 votes nor do you get a 0.5 votes if you’re a ‘really bad citizen’. I would say even the most imbecilic of born humans meets the threshold.
December 7th, 2011 | 2:24 pm
david c and Caleb Herod,
The Jewish position on abortion is well known, which is why I did not take the trouble to document it. The Religious Tolerance web site has a good page on it, from which the following is taken:
I would classify the Jewish position just as “pro-life” as the Catholic position. Both take the life of the unborn very seriously and differ only in the most difficult of cases.
December 7th, 2011 | 4:04 pm
David,
Sorry but that is just nonsense to say that the “Jewish position on abortion is well known” and then cite a source that says that Jews do not consider a child a fully human person until it is born. I don’t know who the “Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance” are, but considering that there is not a single Jew among them, it seems a little far fetched to cite them or their site as somehow authoritative.
A simple wiki search would have led you much closer to the truth. Orthodox Jews tend to be pro life (or ‘anti-abortion’ if you prefer) with very few exceptions. Conservative Judaism adds a few more exceptions (severe emotional or psychological harm to the mother) but still teaches that the woman should consult the father of the child, a rabbi, her family, a doctor, and anyone else who will help her “assess the many grave legal and moral issues involved”.
Reform Judaism has a lot of the same language but is functionally and politically “pro-choice”.
Thus, despite your assertion to the contrary, there is no monolithic unitary Jewish position on abortion. And I, for one,have a great deal of difficulty agreeing that the Jewish position as you have characterized it (a child is not a person until after it is born) is “just as pro-life as the Catholic position” when it is nothing of the sort.
December 7th, 2011 | 4:13 pm
Just to be clear about my concerns, here is the self description of the folks at the website David N. cites as authoritative and only repeating what is “well known” with respect to the question of Judaism and abortion:
From the “about us page” of the Religious Tolerance website:
“We are a multi-faith group. As of mid-2011, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist.”
December 7th, 2011 | 5:05 pm
Thus, despite your assertion to the contrary, there is no monolithic unitary Jewish position on abortion.
Is there one monolithic Jewish position on anything?
December 7th, 2011 | 5:11 pm
Most people are justly skeptical of the claim that you can be a human being and lack a brain.
Boonton,
A very young embryonic human lives without a brain, right before he grows specialized cells to develop one (so yes, youcan be a human being without a brain). After a certain point of development, a human being without a brain is just a dead human. But this is equally true for any number of essential organ systems in one’s anatomy. (Inversely, if you are just a brain–and maybe some eyeballs–connected to electrodes and floating in a huge jar, are you still a human being?)
A live human who loses his brain is usually considered officially dead, even if other organs may still be maintained by machines and such for a time.
Is this analogy meant to suggest that the embryo is basically “dead”? And is it appropriate to compare a healthy, developing human with a mortally wounded human? A better analogy would be a human who has temporarily lost certain brain activity, but will probably recover, since an embryo is a human who temporarily has limited brain function, but is in the course of developing it (as long as he is healthy and has a hospitible environment).
You’re confusing, I think, a binary function with a sliding scale function.
Actually, my understanding of this “threshold” concept is the same as yours. My criticism is not that such a threshold would lead to some human being considered more of a person based on his distance from the “threshold”. Rather, my criticism is two-fold:
1) the threshold is arbitrary.
2) the threshold is set by some humans to exclude other humans.
My view is that the moral imperative to refrain from killing another human being is based on the thing in itself. It ought not to be based on external parties (other humans) assigning value to its various properties or attributes.
And ultimately, no abortion is consented to as an act of sacrificial love.
December 7th, 2011 | 6:33 pm
Can you see any contradiction in appealing to “Jewish law” (whatever that might be . . . )
david c,
Jewish law is halakhah:
As to whether or not a fetus is a full person:
As to whether or not abortion to save the life of the mother is permitted:
You might also consult Wikipedia:
I cited Religious Tolerance not because it is “authoritative” in the sense of being a Jewish site run by Jewish scholars, but because it gives a good, accurate, and unbiased summary of what I was talking about. Religious Tolerance seeks to provide straightforward, unbiased information, and everything I have looked up there so far has been quite reliable.
I think you are muddying the waters by looking around to see what various Jewish authorities may say about abortion. Orthodox Jews are, of course, the most strict, and they permit abortion to save the life of the mother. This is a position held by all branches of Judaism.
December 7th, 2011 | 6:43 pm
Sorry but that is just nonsense to say that the “Jewish position on abortion is well known” and then cite a source that says that Jews do not consider a child a fully human person until it is born.
david c,
It is not nonsense at all, as I believe I have demonstrated above. In your attempt at refuting what I said, you cited no source and you obviously did not consult anything about Jewish Law (halakhah) or the concept of nefesh not being applicable to a fetus until it has mostly come out of its mother’s body.
Thus, despite your assertion to the contrary, there is no monolithic unitary Jewish position on abortion.
The Jewish position I refer to is that abortion to save the life of the mother is permissible (perhaps even mandatory) and abortion is not murder. I challenge you to find a source that contradicts that.
December 7th, 2011 | 9:04 pm
more importantly, I’m seeing david c quibble with David N’s source but not his substance. Yes Orthodox Judism, according to c, permits abortion in fewer cases than Conservative and Conservative fewer than Reform, but the fact remains it seems to run along the lines of what David N said. The unborn is valued as potential life so it can’t be aborted lightly but abortion is NOT equated to killing a born child. For example:
still teaches that the woman should consult the father of the child, a rabbi, her family, a doctor, and anyone else who will help her “assess the many grave legal and moral issues involved”.
Let’s consider swapping out a pregnant woman thinking of abortion and put in a woman suffering post-partum depression whose thinking of killing her toddler. “Talk to your rabbi to help you assess the grave moral issues of murdering a two yr old”? Naaa not the same thing.
I suppose you can fairly call that ‘pro-life’ in the sense that any position that emphasizes life is ‘pro-life’,
December 7th, 2011 | 11:23 pm
David N,
My dispute with you was not with whether or not Jewish teaching might allow for abortion in certain circumstances (many Christian pro lifers do the same), but with the notion that all Jews believe that personhood is not achieved until birth.
As to the notion that ~I~ am the one “muddying the waters” by looking to a variety of actual Jewish sources on abortion to learn the ahem Jewish position on abortion, rather than just trusting you plus an “Atheist, an Agnostic, a Christian, a Wiccan and a Zen Buddhist” is almost laugh out loud funny.
But no matter. We won’t get anywhere on this. So I’ll leave the field to you and Boonton…
December 8th, 2011 | 6:32 am
Do you have a source saying that Jewish thought says personhood begins before birth? Simply noting that abortion isn’t permitted is NOT the same thing as saying it isn’t permitted because its viewed as killing a person.
December 8th, 2011 | 7:17 am
But no matter. We won’t get anywhere on this. So I’ll leave the field to you and Boonton…
david c,
I think you are bowing out because I demonstrated that you are incorrect. If I may cite another source—Exodus 21.22-23 in The Jewish Study Bible and the note that accompanies it:
You might also check Induced Abortion According to Jewish Law by Avraham Steinberg, an extremely technical article from The Journal of Halacha. This is his summary:
I can understand that you would insist that the Catholic approach to abortion—giving equal weight to unborn and born life—is the correct one. What I don’t understand is why you are arguing against my presentation of the Jewish (halakhic) position on abortion.
My dispute with you was not with whether or not Jewish teaching might allow for abortion in certain circumstances (many Christian pro lifers do the same), but with the notion that all Jews believe that personhood is not achieved until birth.
I am not claiming that if you interviewed every Jew in the world, each one would say a fetus is not a full human person. I am stating the mainstream interpretation of Jewish Law—mainstream enough to be mentioned in a note in the Jewish Study Bible without qualifications. You don’t seem to trust any sources I cite, but you have cited none of your own.
December 8th, 2011 | 10:10 am
From the BBC Religion pages:
December 8th, 2011 | 11:40 am
David N,
I notice that some of the cases mentioned in the Jewish Bible seem, well kind of odd. Like two men fighting and one happens to push a pregnant woman who, I guess, happens to be in the crowd watching. Or the other one about two men fighting and one of the wives tries to grab the other’s loincloth.
These scenarios seem, well a bit contrived. Are they really trying to address real things that might actually happen on a regular basis in ancient Israel or are they contrived examples to illustrate some more subtle point (such as what to do with a man who attacks another man’s pregnant wife and causes a miscarriage but no other harm).
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact