Is Iran Here? On Progressivism and Sane Liberalism (Column 483)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
Sometimes I get the feeling that the State of Israel is behaving like Iran. The takeover by fanatical religious elements stuck in the Middle Ages and their success in imposing their distorted values on the general public worries me more than once. But then I pinch myself and put things in proportion. It isn’t objectively true. There are very problematic decisions and actions, but this isn’t Iran. It’s primitiveness and bullying, but not Nazism. Tactically, too, one must be careful with comparisons to Iran (an extension of Godwin’s Law), since if every step I dislike is “Iran,” then at the next cry of “Wolf! Wolf!” no one will believe me. That’s what consoles me when I see hysterical liberals crying “Wolf! Wolf!” every time someone moves their cheese. Thus, for example, desperate howls about the destruction of democracy every time a right-winger says something banal only harm the just struggles against Bibi’s corruption and against religious coercion.
A few days ago I read a characteristically hysterical article featuring desperate wails over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow each state to make its own decisions about abortions. Forget the bikini, the author (Liat Ron) cries; we have before us something even more important: abortions (a woman’s right over her body). If a cardinal topic like a woman’s right to be photographed in a bikini is dwarfed by this looming issue, admit it—it’s truly intriguing. We must get into the weeds to understand the threat facing us from our great friend across the sea (the new Iran): the United States.
Background[1]
In our great friend’s country it’s customary for the president to appoint the justices (unlike in our ultimate democracy, where they appoint themselves, or at least insist on their right to do so). Therefore, every president tries to leave his mark on the Supreme Court and appoint justices in his image. This influence remains even after his term ends, since a president leaves after eight years at most, while justices serve until retirement. Naturally, a Republican president tries to appoint conservative justices and a Democratic president appoints liberal (progressive) ones. That’s how things run there, and it’s part of a reasonable democratic mechanism accepted there. I’ve already gotten used to every conservative appointment eliciting howls from the liberal side (and vice versa, though that’s heard less—at least here). For them, the direction the Court can go is single and exclusive. Any slight move in the other direction (to the sitra achra, the “other side”) is nothing less than a catastrophe. Apocalypse Now. This discourse intensified greatly during Donald Trump’s tenure, who truly was a loathsome creature that behaved and spoke in appalling ways in various contexts. It’s no wonder that when he managed to appoint several more conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, an apocalyptic outcry arose. It’s very easy to hang everything on Trump in order to portray this entire move as an existential threat. Iranization of America.
You may be surprised, but the banner of the struggle and its main focal point is abortion. Here in our holy land, no one even chirps about this; it’s arranged quietly according to rules that don’t really exist, and each person does what is right in their own eyes. For example, the committees that the law requires one to go through to approve abortions are a dead letter, a rubber stamp. They approve every request automatically. You can ask Oren, the site’s editor, who tried his hand at petitions to the High Court in this area and, to my regret, suffered resounding failures (in my view, entirely predictable). But in our great friend’s country there are devout Christians who are less delicate than our local “dosim” (religious zealots), and they are not ashamed to try to prohibit murder under the protection of law—what is euphemistically called an “abortion.” What passes here by quiet and wondrous consensus is there a subject of a political struggle brimming with passions and strong-arm tactics (well, by the halakhic principle of rodef we learned that preventing murder justifies the use of force).
In the past, abortion was considered murder and was forbidden in every civilized country. Then, in 1973, in the famous Roe v. Wade case, the U.S. Supreme Court made a precedent-setting decision to legalize abortions. Through their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment, they determined that this is a protected federal constitutional right, and therefore no state can forbid it in its own constitution. A remarkably “enlightened” step, of course—at least if you ask every Democratic voter and your average liberal. And then, in 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court already consisted of a conservative majority, we were informed of its new decision overturning the Roe v. Wade interpretation by a six-to-three majority. They held that this is not a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade was a mistake from the outset), and that each state is free to decide whether to forbid abortions within its borders or not. Note well: they did not forbid abortions, but merely determined that states may address this in their constitutions.
No need to tell you what insane carnival has opened there (and here as well). The internet is boiling, the street is roiling, and I allow myself to assume that mass clashes of unimaginable intensity are to be expected. This could reach civil war. The hysteria is global, and even in the small appendage of our great friend (that is, in our province) you can see desperate, hysterical expressions of this—such as this, for example (one of many).
Abortion Is Murder
The moral problem of abortion is not my topic here, but this background is necessary for what I will write later. I already wrote my view on abortions in Column 73. To me, it is plain murder, and therefore the demand to permit abortions is, in my eyes, akin to a demand to permit murder. The foolish arguments about a “woman’s right over her body,” which every idiot (male and female) repeats with religious devotion, are, of course, utter nonsense. This “argument” consists of two components (and I doubt many of those who raise it are truly aware of them): 1) A woman has a right over her own body. 2) A fetus is part of the woman’s body (and the assumption is that it is not a person, of course). I fully accept premise 1, but by itself it is insufficient to justify murder. I have full rights over my house, but that does not mean I may murder anyone who happens to be inside it. Premise 2 is highly problematic, and it’s no wonder that, in the “debates” held on this issue, the focus is on premise 1. Keep this important demagogic rule in hand: if you wish to argue a weak claim, focus on your strongest premise and conceal the weak one (not to say the absurd one).
By this reasoning, I can permit the murder of a baby at the moment of birth, since I see no significant difference between that baby and the fetus that baby was a moment earlier. That too is not a person. True, it is no longer inside the woman’s body, but in two days it will be in her house, and as we recall she has full rights over her house. And what of a child with a severe intellectual disability who is completely dependent on the parents? May one also murder such a child on the pretext that the parents have rights over their home and property (and therefore need not support the child, and may even kill him)? How can you explain to me that a fetus is not a person, but a newborn a second after birth is, and so is a severely disabled child? A fetus at least has the potential to become a fully fledged person; a severely disabled individual may not even have that. For fear of a public uproar I will not enter here into the question of how one can determine whether a Jew, a Gypsy, or a witch is a human being (though in my opinion this is not demagoguery at all—it is an excellent question for supporters of abortion).
I don’t know on what basis anyone can determine that a fetus is not a person, and up to which exact stage this can be said. True, a drop of semen or even a fertilized egg is not yet a person, but at later stages I fail to see how one can draw a convincing line for when the fetus becomes a person. As long as it depends on its mother? It seems to me that’s true until about age ten. Here lies a terrible slippery slope. When they talk about individual freedom and privacy, liberals draw the line far beyond what’s reasonable. In every governmental step they see an immediate threat to us and foresee horrific invasions of privacy, and therefore seek to forbid everything. Yet here, when it’s a prohibition of murder (not merely an invasion of privacy), somehow no one is troubled by future consequences and the fear that people are being murdered.
But it’s much more than that. In Column 429 I distinguished between two types of slippery-slope arguments: (A) forbidding the permitted for fear we’ll arrive at permitting the forbidden; (B) a situation with a wide gray zone and a very unclear line, where there is a fear that by the act itself we are already crossing a prohibition. In our case both types apply. Abortions should be forbidden in every case—both because of the fear that we might cross the (unclear) line that defines life and thus fail in the prohibition of murder, and beyond that, it’s very likely that even in abortions done “legally” we are actually murdering (because the fetus is already a person). When the prohibition in question is murder, I cannot understand how people allow themselves to draw an arbitrary line and ignore these considerations.
In Column 73 I explained that the linkage made between the prohibition of abortion and religious faith (Christian or Jewish) is mere demagoguery. As far as I’m concerned, the religious-halakhic problem can be solved (I’ll perform the abortion via “change,” via indirect causation—grama—or with my left hand). I’m speaking on the moral plane, not the religious one. Precisely there I cannot see any reasonable consideration that justifies murder. In halakhic religious thinking one can perhaps limit the prohibition and set some line (which the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed to us?), but morally I do not see how any such line can be justified. The linkage between these planes is made by secular supporters of abortion, for whom it is very convenient to present this murder as an act devoid of moral ramifications, some sort of religious craziness. It’s a great pity the public at large buys this sham. I believe I once mentioned the nice story about a friend of a friend who interviewed for medical school; seeing the kippah on his head, they asked what he would do if he encountered a case requiring an artificial abortion. He answered them cleverly, in keeping with their foolishness: I’ll manage the religious prohibition (I’ll sell the knife to a gentile), but with the moral prohibition I have no idea what can be done (he essentially asked them implicitly: what will you do with it? Are secular people not supposed to be troubled by such a dilemma?).
Extreme Cases
I’m not ignoring difficult situations of pregnancy due to rape, or pregnancies of young girls, and the like, but not every abortion is done under such extreme circumstances. The waving about of claims that rape victims are being forced to give birth is, again, classic liberal demagoguery. I accept that killing a fetus is not the same as murdering a person. Although to me it is murder, there is a hierarchy between the cases. From that perspective there may be room to permit an abortion in extreme cases, as something “overridden” (dechuya, like permitting aborting a fetus to save the mother’s life). But most supporters of abortion see it as “permitted” (hutra), that is, in their eyes it is an act devoid of moral significance for which there is no logic in state intervention or supervision. Beyond that, because we’re dealing with the prohibition of murder, in my opinion there is definitely room to forbid abortions even in such extreme cases, and to provide for the baby who will be born in an institution established by society. The fact that we have no solution or do not wish to invest the resources and effort does not necessarily permit us to murder these children.
But as noted, I’m not dealing here with those extreme cases. Regarding extremes, the different U.S. states will be able to consider them and set standards for when abortion is forbidden and when not. Moreover, one can also criticize the U.S. Supreme Court for not setting a framework for its permission—i.e., that in such cases there truly is a constitutional right to abort. But from there to claims against the very determination that leaves the freedom to the states to legislate a general abortion law—the distance is great.
The right to abort is perceived by most of the public as a fundamental right, to the point that most public voices oppose any limitations the law might impose. It’s not merely permission for extreme cases, but a total absence of regulation. The state should even fund it as part of the medical care it provides its citizens. In the view of many supporters of abortion, the committees should be abolished and every woman, in any situation, should be allowed to abort. So please don’t tell me tales about rape victims and hardship. They are fighting for the right to murder freely: 007.
The Meaning of the Ruling
Note that the ruling did not ban abortions. It only granted the freedom to forbid or to permit. That is, the demand (which to the screamers there seems self-evident) is to prevent states from forbidding murder and from protecting helpless fetuses from being murdered by their parents. Liberals stand, very loudly, on their right to a dictatorship over anyone who thinks differently. When the Court dares to release the dictatorship and allow people to decide for themselves, an outcry erupts about a terrible violation of individual rights. Since when does freedom violate individual rights? Does every individual have a right for liberals to dictate to him what to do and whether he may or may not murder?
These protests are linked to parallel protests regarding LGBT rights. This linkage is made both by liberals and by conservatives (religious), but it is mistaken. The LGBT struggle I very much understand and even identify with, even if I don’t always like its style—its forcefulness and silencing (this is probably the reason for the perceived similarity between the struggles). The reason is that there it involves state coercion over people in matters that concern only themselves. As a liberal, I am not willing for the state to interfere with what consenting adults do in their private domain. But abortion is not an action a woman does in her private domain (inside her body), and therefore it is not a matter of liberalism. It is the murder of another being. She can declare until tomorrow that it’s her right, that it’s her body, and that she wants to be photographed in a bikini, but there is a long way from that to a right to murder another person. The state is not supposed to allow anyone who wishes to do so to murder another person.
To present abortion as a personal right and the prohibition against it as the state’s invasion of privacy is, in my view, akin to the past (and to some extent still present) approach here not to intervene in spousal conflicts and in murder threats by one spouse against the other because it’s a private matter that should be resolved within the family. If the state needs to intervene in what happens at home in order to save a woman from a violent husband, or a child from a violent parent who abuses or sexually coerces him/her, then it certainly needs to intervene to prevent murder within the family. And certainly it should not permit it, abolish all regulation, and even fund it. This demand strikes me as utterly unbelievable. Note that I am not protesting here against liberalism, but in the name of liberalism.
Progressive Demagoguery
Having briefly explained my view, the reader may agree or disagree. But I hope he can at least understand my side of the discussion—that is, acknowledge that such a side exists, that my arguments are not absurd and are certainly within the bounds of legitimacy. Alas, when one examines the “discourse” on this subject, two fascinating phenomena appear: (1) an absolute consensus among the non-religious public (at least among those whose voices are heard) regarding the legitimacy of abortion (indeed, most voices call for completely removing the legal restrictions, which, as noted, are a dead letter anyway); (2) the speakers’ deep inner conviction. You can sense it in pictures of women as if something essential to their souls has been violated (for example here). They see this as a profound harm to women and as the application of truly Nazi/Iranian force. That worries me far more than the foolish arguments being raised.
People sometimes raise foolish arguments. Not everyone is a very sharp pencil. Sometimes many people raise foolish arguments—sadly, that too happens quite often. At times even intelligent people raise foolish arguments. All of this is happening in our case. But here something more is happening: all the people whose voices are heard are raising foolish arguments, even though some are manifestly intelligent. They all do so with tremendous intensity and with very persuasive sincerity, and none of them sees even minimal logic in the other side. An absolute consensus on utter nonsense is a very worrying cultish phenomenon. The problem is not only the murder and support for murder, but the view of murder as self-evident and opposition to it as religious darkness. This is a problem of severe brainwashing—a kind of public drugging and cult behavior. Drugging the public is far more worrying than drugging individuals.
When a reasonable, necessary, and in fact very minimalist ruling—such as the one just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court—is portrayed as the Iranization of America and seen as grounds for civil war, it means we are dealing with hysterical, demagogic discourse by a fanatical cult. If I may be allowed a little hysteria as well (equality principle, after all), I am very worried about the Iranization and Nazification of our society as manifested in the Roe v. Wade ruling and in all those who support it.
Progressive Bias
In conclusion, I must say that nothing will help us. Progressives (unlike liberals) are not committed to the law and have never seen themselves as bound by it. Even if the law forbids abortions, they will continue to be performed freely. The law is valid only when it prohibits disobeying an order to evacuate settlements or forbids desecrating the Sabbath. When the law forbids bringing leaven into hospitals (to me, as a liberal, a very problematic law), or forbids abortions, or opening businesses on the Sabbath—it has no validity. There, the violation of the law will be done brazenly and without batting an eyelid. That’s the nature of fanatical religious faith. It does not see the law as something meant to constrain believers on their path.
On the Term “Progressive” and the Phenomenon of Progress
I must say I detest the term “progressive,” which in recent years has returned and taken hold. It was born among the communists and expressed their sense that progress (progress) was on their side and that everyone else was reactionary (anti-progress). Later it was adopted by liberals and essentially fell out of use. Until recent years it always sounded anachronistic to me—a kind of communist discourse that had had its day. In that period it was usually used by communists who had converted their faith to liberalism (I know quite a few such people). In recent years it has come back into use, since liberalism has “advanced” even further and returned to being communist. The sense of absolute justice and the view of forces of light versus darkness that prevailed in the communist era now accompany militant liberalism. Therefore, it has quite justifiably received the label “progressive.” They themselves use it in all seriousness while ignoring its original context, but their conservative critics and sane liberals (like me) use it at most with irony (tinged with a slight sense of disgust).
Progressivism worries conservatives because they see in it a liberal avant-garde. But it worries me precisely because it is a threat to liberalism. As a liberal, I think that the struggle for LGBT rights, for example, is gravely harmed by other struggles that try to annex themselves to it under the demagogic and mistaken heading of liberalism (like the struggle for abortion). Likewise, the struggle against religious coercion is harmed once people understand that without religious coercion we would have murder on demand (already today, with religious coercion, that is the situation), that women’s services will be opened to men who have decided they are women, and much more of the like. These struggles serve conservatives to show how dangerous liberalism is. Therefore, the paramount liberal interest is to smash these grotesque phenomena and scatter them to the winds—and certainly not to give them the stage to speak in the name of liberalism.
The rise of conservatism in recent years (see, for example, Columns 217, 249, 263, 444, and others) is a by-product of progressive phenomena. Sadly, these are its rotten fruits, and as a liberal I protest both against it and against conservatism. One thing is clear: there is no connection between these phenomena and progress in its true sense (= advancement). A sane liberal must oppose these delusional phenomena and struggles just as he opposes conservatism.
The day after writing this column, a decision was made in the Knesset’s Labor and Welfare Committee to ease the procedures of institutionalized murder in Israel. A fitting Zionist response to American wickedness, and further protection of a woman’s right over her body—that is, her right to murder children at will with no oversight. Wonderful—we have become as enlightened as the nations. Needless to say, the media discourse features a uniform Greek chorus raising only the question of why regulation wasn’t abolished entirely and why any limitations remain. There is not a single sane voice, not even one, to be found. A consensus of a brainwashed progressive cult of murderers. Astonishing.
Now I saw: https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/h1rrshn5c
What do you think of Judith Thomson's violinist argument for abortion: A famous violinist is dying, and in order to cleanse the violinist's kidneys of toxins, the violinist's kidneys need to be connected to someone else's. You wake up in the hospital with the violinist connected to your body with a tube. It turns out that a group of music lovers have kidnapped you to the hospital and connected you to the violinist. The doctor tells you that you need to be connected to the violinist for a period of nine months in order for him to recover, and in case you decide to disconnect the violinist before then, you will cause his death. The doctor argues that although it is not your fault, you do not have the right to disconnect the violinist from your body because the violinist has the right to life.
Thomson argued that although the violinist has the right to life, he does not have the right to your body, and therefore you are not obligated to allow the violinist to use your body. According to her, this thought experiment proves that a woman also has the right to have an abortion, just as a man has the right to disconnect the violinist from his body. While it is possible to say that this parable is valid at most in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape and the like, in which the woman is in no way responsible for the situation that led to the pregnancy, in any case one must wonder about both the law in the parable and its relevance to the parable.
In my opinion, the example is irrelevant. Indeed, in the event that the violinist is disconnected from the machine because of you, he will die, and therefore you may not be allowed to disconnect. In this case, on the other hand, even if the child is born, the mother will not die, and the consideration for aborting it is for reasons of convenience (which even if they have a place, not in a case where abortion is perceived as murder).
The assumption is that even in the violinist example, you won't die if you stay connected to him, you'll just be pretty limited for nine months. It's uncomfortable, but does that justify causing his death?
Regarding the case itself, I doubt it. It is true that you do not have to give him anything even if he is in danger, but you certainly have a duty to save him (you shall not stand for the blood of your neighbor). Therefore, he does not have the right to remain connected, but you have a duty not to disconnect. Beyond that, there is a difference between refusing to connect and disconnecting. In my opinion, he does not have the right to connect, but you have a duty not to disconnect (which overrides your right to disconnect). Although if it were a question of giving up an organ for his benefit, that is probably a different matter.
But as you wrote, this case is at most about abortion in extreme situations. But when a woman became pregnant by her husband, she put the fetus into her uterus and therefore certainly has no right to disconnect, in any case the duty not to disconnect certainly outweighs because there is no right (to disconnect) against her.
This is reminiscent of the examples raised by R”M. Feinstein and the corresponding priest in the case of the Siamese twins in Philadelphia 76. If you climb a mountain and hold on to a stake stuck in the mountain. Another person was hanging from his leg and the stake could not hold them both. Is it permissible for him to kick this person down? They assumed that it certainly would. But that is when the reality is that both of them will not hold up and will go to their deaths. In a situation where both of them can live on the stake, am I permitted to kick him down? Very unlikely. I have a right to the stake, but I have an obligation to save him. Like a pitcher of water that is enough for both of them, I certainly have an obligation to give him some of the water so that he may be saved. Only when there is not enough for both of them did R”A and Ben Azzai disagree.
Naturally, there is a fundamental difference between the example with the peg and the violin, since there both are holding onto something else and therefore the right of both is equal to the extent that it is only an inconvenience, but with the violin he enters into his own possession, and just as a person has the right to stand on his own two feet, as a result he will kill the other.
The stake belongs to the Supreme One and the other is hung on it. Even there it belongs to one.
A person can stand up for his own property, but this is only if the one threatened puts himself in this situation. Otherwise, one must certainly invest money to save his friend from death (you shall not stand up for the blood of your neighbor). Although the victim does not have the right to be saved, the rescuer has an obligation to do so. And the Rashba's response implies that there is even a right, but this is a strange thing.
This may be relevant to rape cases, but the usual case is perhaps analogous to the case where you bet with those musicians and said that if you lose, you will be hooked up with the violinist - at most, you will kill him if you decide you don't like him - and then surprisingly, you really lost and were hooked up with him. This is a bit different from the demagogic "thought experiment" you cited, and is more appropriate in a case of unprotected sex (or protected with limited liability and without the morning-after pill) with consent.
Correction: Supreme Court justices in the US province stay until 120, not “until retirement”
(Therefore, the Honorable Judge Ruth Bader, who did not retire during Obama's time, resigned at the end of the Trump era, and handed him the conservative majority on a silver platter,
as the famous song “Six-Three” says
Thanks for the correction. But I wouldn't use derogatory terms like "retarded". She was a very impressive personality, even if you don't agree with her views (like me).
By the way, she was well aware of this and yet honestly chose to stay in the chair and not make a move. To her credit.
From an article by Yuval Elbashan in ”Globes”, about two years ago:
But then something changed. Bader Ginsburg began to present minority opinions that did not become law but created a reputation for her among radical audiences outside the legal world, which turned her into a real cultural icon. The more radical she became, the more admiration she received from those circles intensified, and the more it grew, the more her minority opinions seemed to become more radical, and she began to act less as a judge and jurist and more as a public leader. The peak was in the 2016 elections, when she violated all the rules of judicial ethics and attacked candidate and President Donald Trump (something she repeated in an interview she gave to the BBC in 2017).
This brought the cult of personality to new heights, but further alienated her colleagues on the Supreme Court, who worriedly viewed her actions as an attack on this important institution. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, said in an interview with The Atlantic magazine that his ambition is for greater harmony in the Supreme Court's rulings and for every judge to be concerned about the status of the Court as an institution: "I think all judges should be concerned when they write minority opinions about their impact on the Court as an institution." He alluded to this and added that "if the Court in Marshall's era had made decisions in important cases like this Court has in the last thirty years, we wouldn't have the kind of Supreme Court we have today." (Marshall served as Chief Justice during the formative years of the United States and its legal system, starting in 1801 for about 34 years, and it was he who essentially determined the status of the Supreme Court.) More than that, he feared that Bader Ginsburg's breaking of the rules would lead to the other side breaking the rules and destroying the legal system.
It seems that the cult of personality outside the legal world led Bader Ginsburg to reject the offer by President Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders to retire due to her advanced age so that they could appoint a liberal judge in her place before the Republicans returned to power. Although she herself announced that she would retire in 2012, approaching the age of 80, she went back on it, continued to issue minority opinions that did not become rulings and dismissed with contempt - to the delight of her admirers who have now elevated her to the rank of "el" - all the pleaders who claimed that the risk she was taking was unnecessary.
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001343612
Yasir Koch
Three comments –
1 – Appointments of federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, in consultation with the Senate, are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – it is not a custom.
2 – Unlike in Israel, U.S. court judges usually serve well past retirement age, sometimes until the day they die.
3 – One of the main arguments heard among Orthodox Jews in the U.S. in favor of Roe v. Wade is that without it, a Jewish woman who is legally permitted or obligated to obtain an abortion would not be able to do so in certain states if states were allowed to determine the legality of abortions. These Jews have convinced themselves that this is a winning argument that ends the debate on the issue. They, of course, completely ignore the endless issues in which states are allowed to enact laws that might restrict religious people from fulfilling their religious obligations in certain cases. For example, states can imprison a person, which would presumably prevent him from fulfilling the commandments of the Sabbath. There is no outcry demanding that the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution to prohibit states from imprisoning criminals. Etc.
1 – I apologize if I exaggerated. You simply wrote “In our great friend, it is customary for the president to appoint the judges”, as if this were some kind of non-binding custom or agreement. In short, I noted that this is a leadership enshrined in the American Constitution, something that is equivalent to the Basic Law: Judiciary in our country, which determines the composition of the committee for appointing judges.
You didn't exaggerate. Everything is fine. Thanks for the correction, but of course I didn't mean the custom of "Balma" here. It's a form of expression.
1. I didn't understand the comment. Did I write differently?
2. Thank you for the correction. You're welcome, Gurvitz, you're welcome.
3. This is one of those biased and dishonest arguments, and in my opinion it's hard to see it as justification for collaborating with murder.
1. Just as liberals talk about rape, conservatives talk about the sixth month and beyond, even though 91% of abortions in the US are up to the 13th week.
2. It's a bit strange that the vast majority of people who are not influenced by religion are in favor of abortion. Maybe it's not a failure of liberals but of the religious.
1. Indeed, there is dishonesty on both sides.
2. Therefore it is better to discuss things on their own merits and not through Marxist arguments of influences and agendas.
In your opinion, at what stage is the fetus called a human being? Is it from the moment the eggs and sperm join? If so, from what I understand, in your opinion it is impossible to do in vitro fertilization.
And what if a woman has triplets and in order for them to survive the doctors say to kill one fetus, do you think that is okay?
For some reason, you present the issue of abortions as if it is the simplest thing in the world and ignore the complexity of the issue, I don't understand why you do this.
Yishai-
1. From the moment it has a heart, so that in vitro fertilization can be done. But if I were to define an egg and sperm that have joined as a person and its abortion as murder – then I would indeed prohibit in vitro fertilization. What's the problem? If it's murder, then it's forbidden.
2. When there is a defect that will cause the fetus not to live when it's born, it can be judged as not being human. Or as dying. Or as prey. Therefore, the same goes for triplets.
As for the very claim about complexity - every issue has complexities, and yet there are general assumptions that are the basis, and to which nuances and boundaries are added in each individual case. The claim in this column is that the basic assumption is that it is permissible to murder fetuses, not that it is forbidden to murder. After that, there are certainly individual cases in which it would be permissible, and a precise boundary needs to be established for the time when the prohibition on murdering a fetus begins. This does not contradict the fact that the basic assumption is simple and yet almost unheard of.
In my opinion, there is no sharp line, but there is a very large gray area. But I did not understand the argument. Why not fertilize?
Of course it is possible. See my article on separating Siamese twins (and the comment on diluting embryos in it).
What is simple is that without reason it is not permissible to kill embryos. And it is really simple. The various complexities come on top of this, and I did not talk about them.
Ok, now I accept the argument.
Regarding in vitro fertilization, I saw (in a film about Rabbi Elyashiv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX6JHWmZBTg 1 hour and 8 minutes) that in the process, an egg is fertilized with sperm and then one cell that is created is removed (supposedly it is already undergoing) to check whether the genes are damaged or not, if the genes are damaged then all the cells are destroyed. Therefore, if you believe that the embryo becomes a person from the moment the egg and sperm supposedly connected, this process is forbidden (even if they did not destroy the cells if there is a genetic defect, the mere removal of one cell to check it is its destruction)
This is not a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, but rather on the destruction of a fertilized egg. When there are significant defects in the baby, there is room to allow abortion of even a fetus. It is a continuous scale between a cluster of cells and a person, and the line is not sharp. But there is room for proportional considerations, as I also mentioned in the column.
Please listen to this fool who is less interested in the fetus right now, and to her two conversation partners:
https://103fm.maariv.co.il/programs/media.aspx?ZrqvnVq=IKLMHF&c41t4nzVQ=ELD
Congratulations!
Excellent column
Small note:
You wrote that the focus on the level of women's rights and not on the definition of a fetus is for tactical reasons, that women's rights are a stronger argument. I think that those who claim a woman's right to her own body, in many cases do not even assume that killing a fetus is not murder, they are simply discussing another level - of individual rights. Although these are supposedly moral people, in many cases their morality is only to allow individuals to exercise their rights and not something that stands on its own. The morality that because of the prohibition of the “abstract”murder of a fetus that cannot scream or resist, a woman will suffer an unwanted pregnancy is not understood by parts of secular society
Similarly, the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the 19th century that after sin, morality declined from dealing with what is true and false to what is beautiful and obscene
I think it's just inattention and brainwashing. Morality allows you to exercise your rights, but it doesn't allow you to violate the rights of others. Even progressives agree with that.
As for progressive demagogy, I highly recommend reading Noah Feldman's article. The guy is a true genius and an intellectual star who grew up in a religious family in the Boston area and attended the religious high school Rambam (Maimonides).
Just read and don't believe how progressives see a woman's right to abortion as a continuation of the advancement of civil rights, after the abolition of slavery and the abolition of segregation between blacks and whites…
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-24/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-in-dobbs-is-institutional-suicide
I think you're missing the more interesting point in the article that the Constitution is a dead document. An argument worthy of a diehard who can't understand how accepting the rule in the past also binds him. In essence, this is all progressivism on one foot.
If I understand correctly, an American who wants to have an abortion can travel to another state in the US where abortion is allowed. So the restriction is not very severe
https://www.salon.com/2022/06/25/brett-kavanaugh-voted-to-reverse-roe-v-wade-but-is-fine-with-people-traveling-for-abortions_partner/
That's true, but think about a woman with limited resources, living in central Texas and not having health insurance or having insurance limited to her state. I'm not saying she should have an abortion at all, but it's really not easy.
The source of the link in my above message
https://tamritz.wordpress.com/2022/06/26/%d7%a2%d7%93%d7%99%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%90%d7%a8%d7%a5-%d7%94%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%99%d7%9d/
Recommended!
https://www.facebook.com/gelmand/posts/pfbid02DyyQdLjisexMRzNkP9wxdGGVgHCJXkEVZwVB9B24XZ4rA9q2GNDrWHXHqB4FjHpYl
I have now seen that most Americans are against restricting abortions
that all 6 judges who voted in favor were asked about it in the Senate before being appointed (the process in the US for appointing judges per million) and they all lied that they would vote against, so in fact their decision now reveals that they lied.
In short, it stinks of lies and deceit.
Why do we really prefer human life to fetal life in extreme situations? Is it because, ultimately, a fetus is not yet a real person and is only in the preparation stages, or because of Judith Thomson's claim in Moshe Rat's response, or perhaps another reason?
The first. This is how the Gemara and Rambam explain a persecutor.
Even if we assume that you are right (not at all certain), that most Americans are against it. Why would they impose their opinion on the majority of the residents of a certain state in the US that is in favor of restricting abortions? Maybe tomorrow these Americans will also impose their opinion on the residents of Mexico? What's next? They also want to force the Russians to put in charge of whomever they approve.
The two links you provided are fascinating. The first one is about the cantons, thought-provoking. The second one is sad and proves that in the end it all has to do with socioeconomic status. Thank you!
All of these things divert the discussion. Heartbreaking extreme cases and socioeconomic debates are not the point, nor is the possibility of murdering with the left hand in another country (with or without money). The question I was addressing is: Are progressives right that this is a neutral act that is solely the woman's concern and that all regulations are paternalism that infringes on her rights, or not? That's all.
Abortion is a borderline case, by definition, because the woman's body is involved here, and her life, and her future, and her physical and mental health. Almost everyone agrees that there are borderline cases in which abortion will be permitted. You protest, rightly, against the unbearable ease of the possibility of abortion because of the aspect of human life and the murder that it entails. But no matter how you look at it, there are two souls here, not one. So the question is only one of doses, balances. And the things have already been said.
Sorry, the sequel ran away – for this reason ‘extreme cases and socioeconomic discussions are definitely part of the issue and not a marginal issue.
I would like to check something:
If the prohibition on aborting a fetus is not absolute anyway, and depends on the gestational age and circumstances, then the principle exists and now it remains to discuss its scope and circumstances. Last night I saw an article on News 12 about the matter, the channel's reporter traveled to meet with abortion centers in Texas, where it is now completely banned. The interviewees were in great mourning, and although the interviewer completely shared the agenda with them and seemingly all of this can be dismissed as an extreme feminist agenda, I believe that is not the case. These women, the doctors and social workers, are alive within their people, and when a seventy-year-old woman sighs that the wheel is turning back again, she knows what she is talking about, because she and everyone else are intimately familiar with the sociological story. Poor and uneducated women, who are the ones who will suffer the most if they allow an unwanted pregnancy to ruin their lives: it will drag them into poverty, lack of education, and worse troubles. Theoretically and philosophically, these cases can be included in the list of cases in which the ban is “rejected,” as many would agree, and perhaps you too, regarding abortion and rape. So the question is how do you see the scale and what is placed on it? Therefore, it is worth fighting for the envelope – education about contraception, access to the “morning after” pill – early pregnancy tests, and the like. These will contribute more to the problem of murder than a blanket ban, which will ultimately ruin the lives of women from low socioeconomic status. Perhaps in this case it is like those Siamese twins you wrote about, or a multiple pregnancy that needs to be thinned out. Here, the 'dilution' is for the benefit of the mother's mental and physical survival.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. If women (and men) were fighting for the permission (and not the right) to abort in extreme situations, I wouldn't be writing this. Maybe I would write that instead of aborting, they should be helped to raise the baby or give it up for adoption or foster care, etc. Still, it's murder. But that's not the issue here.
The problem I was talking about is that we are presented with a crazy consensus according to which the very existence of committees and restrictions, the very fact that a woman has to give an explanation at all, is an injustice that violates her right to her own body. And there's no dispute about that. Just listen to and read the media. We've completely lost the sensitivity to the fact that this is an infringement on the life of a living being. It's completely "permissible". It's what I said, that progressivism is a shot in the foot of sane liberalism.
I'm afraid your words don't give enough weight to the emotional cost of pregnancy, childbirth, delivering a baby, and the consequences of all of this. The poor woman who didn't receive an education and didn't know how to be careful is the Siamese twin.
And the price of an abortion is easy in your opinion? A woman who finds herself in such a situation needs to take all of this into account. The Siamese twin who created the situation is the one who has to give his life to save the other. Siamese twins are a situation that both of them found themselves in against their will and in a symmetrical manner. By the way, I think that the fact that a woman is not careful and is not educated to be careful is caused, among other things, by the light hand on the trigger for abortions. Older people have to bear the consequences of their actions, even if they are poor and uneducated. This does not justify a license for murder.
Abortion in a very early month is incomparable with childbirth and the delivery of the child. Indeed, a woman “should take all of this into account,” but what if she is ignorant and poor and belongs to a world that did not teach her to be careful about such things? I agree with you that the emphasis should be on sex education, but most of the time the same conservative bodies that oppose abortion are the ones who oppose sex education, placing contraceptives in high schools, and the like.
I did not write a column aimed at supporting conservative bodies. I was talking about abortion. If someone wants to take care of such women, then they should definitely take care of their education and not allow them to murder.
Beyond that, all of these phenomena are the result of secular permissiveness that recognizes the legitimacy of free and casual sexual relations. So they cooked up all of this porridge from scratch. That does not mean that there are no exceptions in the religious world, but the extent of the problem is created because of permissiveness. When every 12-year-old can decide whether to have sex, it is no wonder that these are the results.
By the way, just this morning I saw a report in B'Sheva about a decision to require sex education in schools. Note the objectivity of the report. There is no negative or critical comment there: https://www.inn.co.il/news/569527
You talked about abortions, but they occur in a real, not theoretical, environment that must be considered in its context. I agree with the issue of permissiveness, but the problem is generally not found in modern 12-year-olds who are quite knowledgeable about what can and cannot be done to prevent pregnancy, but in populations where women are particularly vulnerable. I read the article in Besseva and the subject is indeed presented with admirable objectivity.
According to Jewish law, a woman who is killed while pregnant is preparing her for the house of pregnancy. As long as the fetus has not expelled its head, it is not murder. At least from a halakhic point of view.
Turning abortion into murder and the idea that the fetus is considered a person from the moment of fertilization is a Christian idea. According to them, beyond murder, there is also the problem of “interference in God's leadership of the world”. Therefore, the cultivation of stem cells is also prohibited even if only that organ is grown. And there are those who see it as murder there as well.
From a legal point of view, I do not think this meets the definition of murder. Only the ethical and philosophical reason remains, except that there you first have to define what a living person is. And it is not that simple.
The claim that any position is derived from or influenced by a particular source is not a claim on the merits (in my opinion it is also incorrect). I explained that Dani claims this precisely on a moral and not a halakhic level.
The absurdity of Christian countries' attitude towards stem cells in the face of abortion is well-known and ancient, and this good question should be directed to them.
I explained that precisely because of the difficulty in defining life and a person, logic says that the lightness with which abortion is treated is intolerable.
Hayutha,
I think the argument you raised needs to be discussed on a more general level.
I'll explain -
You claim that there are considerations that allow abortion, and that the economic and mental state of the woman giving birth is one of these, because if we ban abortion, the lives of women who are already in a bad situation will be ruined. Assuming that you are making a moral argument here (that indeed in such a case the destruction of the woman's life outweighs the prohibition on abortion) and not emotional manipulation, there are many arguments on various issues that are equivalent to this argument and in my opinion it is worth deciding in general whether to accept them.
Example – Corona restrictions. In a halakhic book published in the wake of Corona, an article was published that claimed that it is forbidden to restrict the public with closures, because although Corona kills, the mental and economic state caused by the restrictions also kills, and statistically it kills more people. Rabbi Yaakov Ariel commented on this article that this consideration is incorrect, and it is not possible to compare a direct cause of death (corona) with indirect and ambiguous causes (such as economics).
Similar arguments are heard on the subject of pikuach nefesh on Shabbat, what is defined as pikuach nefesh and what is not, and so on. In a world where the effects of mental and economic conditions on health and death are being studied, their effect on the boundaries of pikuach nefesh should be reconsidered.
What I am arguing is that if we accept your argument, the existing halacha in a large number of halakhah should be changed and a serious halakhic debate should be held on it. Currently, the situation is that the poskim are not interested in giving much weight to such arguments.
As far as I know, there are certain permits related to this type of argument. The trivial example is the permit for a husband to travel with the woman giving birth on Shabbat, but also the permit to drive psychologists and social workers to the scenes of terrorist attacks on Shabbat, and the like.
All of these permissions are irrelevant to the prohibition of murder.
Would you accept Yigal Amir's defense that he was caused great distress by Rabin's being alive (when his policies caused the deaths of others), and that the only way to stop it was to murder him (which doesn't sound very far from what he really thinks about himself)?
Let me assume that your answer to that is no (and rightly so). So why does the ‘right of a woman to her psychological well-being’ permit murder?
Because Rabin had a face, and the fetus will have a face only after the abortion (most likely the woman who aborted will not see them, nor will anyone who supports indiscriminate abortions). That's all the difference. It doesn't sound very moral to me.
This is too extreme a formulation. There are levels to murder, too, and not the murder of a fetus is the same as the murder of a person. Therefore, there is a place for abortion permits because it is a fetus. Just as even though there is no law against a fetus, it is still permissible to kill it to save its mother. The reason is that its life is worth less (or incomplete).
Not long ago, there was a permit for a person suffering from anxiety or a heart attack (I don't remember exactly) to smoke cannabis on Shabbat. Even though it's not about pikuach nefesh of the body.
I also heard about Rabbi Elyashiv's permit for a person to drive a car on Shabbat to get to the hospital after his wife gave birth because the woman needed him. I haven't seen the reply, but I heard about it from someone who read it.
Of course, if he were traveling in a car while another person was driving (for example, in a taxi), especially by a gentile, there would be nothing new here, since this is a rabbinical prohibition that was rejected for a patient who is not in danger.
There are also permits to violate Shabbat for a person who is passing away or for a woman who is kidnapped to live with a gentile (and there it is only a question of Torah), but there too it is not necessarily about pikuach nefesh of the body.
In fact, the Gemara already has far-reaching permits for a person who has binge-drinking or who is giving birth, where it's hard for me to see where the pikuach nefesh is. At most, he will have a seizure or collapse and come back to himself.
It is also interesting what the halakhic position is regarding those hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals, for whom the only way to calm them down is by giving them an injection on Shabbat.
Not to mention agunot and even women who are refused a get, for whom urgent permits are sought, sometimes when it is clear that no attempt is made to check halakhically whether she is married according to halakhic law or not, in which case there is also a lot to be concerned about.
Such halakhic concepts already exist. Some of them seem very puzzling to me too, but they still exist.
On the 29th of Sivan, 5782
However, the discussion on abortions took place in preparation for the anniversary of the passing of Dr. Shosheim, the great warrior for saving fetuses, starting today, the 29th of Sivan.
With regards, Yekutiel Shneur Zehavi
You expressed well the frustration I feel when I talk to people about the subject and they immediately wave the woman's body over and that's the end of the discussion. It really and truly frustrates me, and I'm trying to understand what this stems from, why it's really so clear to them that they're supposed to agree with them and you have no right to say a word about it? Is it because of the reaction from religion, or is it simply because everything that was once forbidden must now be the other way around? I really want to understand this, because it sounds so clear to the other side that there is no other side, and I'm trying to understand what leads to this place.
I don't know. I assume all the answers are correct. Also women's frustration with long-standing deprivation and exploitation
I have now added at the end of the column:
A day after writing the column, a decision was made in the Knesset Labor and Welfare Committee to ease the procedures for institutionalized murder in Israel:
https://main.knesset.gov.il/News/PressReleases/Pages/press27062022L.aspx
A fitting Zionist response to American wickedness, and further protection of a woman's right to her own body, that is, her right to murder children as she pleases without any control. Great, we were like the Enlightenment of the Nations. Needless to say, there is a unified Greek chorus in the media discourse, which raises only the question of why the regulation was not completely abolished and why any restrictions were left. There is not a sane voice, not even a single one, for medicine. A consensus of a cult of brainwashed progressive murderers. Amazing.
In the 29th of September, 2019, the
Providing the possibility of performing abortions in health insurance funds could be a good thing, since in the current situation, abortion centers have a financial interest in encouraging women to have abortions. The centers have ‘approval committees’ which of course always approve, since this is in the interest of the ‘institute’.
Transferring the performance to the health insurance funds will indeed make the performance cheaper, but it will also lead to the severing of the interest-based connection between the approving committee and the performing party. In an objective committee, there is a chance that the woman will receive advice on the physical and mental problems that the abortion causes the woman, and the woman will also be offered solutions for help and social support without having to terminate the pregnancy.
However, there is still a religious party in the coalition, namely the Ra'am, which has a chance of balancing the abortion supporters a bit 🙂
Best regards, Kailas Odelson
I didn't understand the argument. Don't health insurance companies have a financial interest?
In the month of Tammuz, the second of the month of Ramadan
To Hananel – Hello,
A private abortion clinic benefits from the existence of abortion, since the client (or her medical insurance9) finances the ’treatment’ at a full and profitable price. In contrast, a service provided by the health insurance fund to its clients is provided free of charge or at a very subsidized price, so that the health insurance fund checks every treatment it is required to perform or finance – whether it is essential.
Moreover, the doctor who regularly treats a woman knows that abortion is not a simple matter from a medical point of view, and it may complicate the woman with long-term physical and mental damage, and if he is a reliable doctor – he should inform the woman about this so that she can weigh the ‘abortion fee against the loss’. The ‘woman’s right’ also to know the risks of abortion.
And in any case, we really need to ensure that every ‘medical committee’ also includes a social worker Which is not dependent on the medical institution and can also offer a rehabilitation and social support program that will allow the mother to raise her child in proper conditions and not have an abortion. Even if it is said that the fetus is the mother's organ, it is unthinkable that amputation would be the preferred option. In normal medicine, every method of healing and rehabilitation that prevents amputation is tried.
The cause should not only involve people who, by virtue of their religious beliefs, deny abortions. Secular medical professionals who advocate for the "right of a woman to her own body" should also stand up for the woman's right to know both the risks of abortion and the support options that will prevent an abortion. Only when the woman knows the whole picture, can she make an informed decision.
Best regards, Kailas Odelson
On the benefits and risks of deferring the decision from the committees to the health funds, see Dr. Hanna Kashan's article, "Is the Right to Choose Good for Women?", on the Channel 7 website.
Best regards, K.A.
And regarding abortions –
Dr. Hanna Katan said after the passing of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, ztzel, that he was asked about a case in which the doctors said the fetus suffered from a severe birth defect and recommended an abortion. Rabbi Lichtenstein ordered, as per his system, that abortion should only be performed in cases of life-threatening danger to the mother, but he asked for the name and the name of the pregnant woman's mother in order to pray for her, and after nine months the child was born completely healthy without any birth defect!
With blessings, K”A
After all, progressives are supposed to lead the opposition to abortion, and they encourage surrogacy to allow LGBT people to start a family. So why “harvest” the fetus when it can bring happiness to those who want to avoid children?
Best regards, K.A.
We have already heard that the supporters of the ‘discourse of rights’ are already talking about rights not only for animals but also for inanimate objects, and we have already heard that in New Zealand they gave the river ‘the right to stand trial’ and representation in court. Why should the share of fetuses be diminished? It is appropriate that in every discussion on the approval of abortion – there should be someone who will also represent the fetus and claim its right to life!
Best regards, Nachshon Gershon Ha'ami
Well, Rabbi Lichtenstein is dead. So who will pray for the fetuses now? And how many stories about *unanswered* prayers does Dr. Katan know but prefer not to tell about? And what about fetuses that were not prayed for and still turned out fine?
The only reason it's expensive in clinics is that that's what these clinics do, and nothing more. The health insurance company charges the money on a monthly basis and for a variety of treatments. Introducing abortions into the health insurance companies will overall increase the premium for women of childbearing age so that the company can cover it. I don't know if this will also make the health insurance company committees really have a less light hand on the trigger. They will receive the funding for the actual treatment from the Ministry of Health in any case.
Below is a comment from Rabbi Cherlow
https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/pfbid0296ntT4MDT2NJYYvNZy8rmKkBQvXhefpuE65WhvR8goUwe1YnS2qfJm3zZ1ZpzaFCl
In my opinion, the column is unfair. Let me guess, you have no idea what really happens in the relationship between Jewish women and Arabs, what percentage of them experience violence, etc. Given that they have been dealing with the issue for years and years, I assume they know the reality on the ground much, much better than you do. Of course, it can be argued that they are exaggerating, generalizing, etc., but from knowing the data and not shooting from the hip.
Another thing, we must distinguish between statements by all sorts of guys who wear flame shirts and claim to represent the organization, and the heads of the organization and the people who actually work there.
Sorry, I meant the new column, copying there.
Article on the subject by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, also known as the Abortion-Lust Mob Rebbe
http://www.leibowitz.co.il/leibaricles.asp?id=11
I think it would be better to establish the source of the moral prohibition on murder before you approach the question of when it is forbidden to kill a person.
Perceiving the moral law against murder as an example of reason – “ It is forbidden to murder and that is it” – You will never be able to answer questions in which the case is not so clear, like our case. On the other hand, even perceiving this moral law as an idea with reasons behind it may lead to the conclusion that in the above case the prohibition does not apply, due to the idea behind it. Therefore, I see the flattening of your perception of morality as something important to do before approaching this question.
For example, I fail to see an abortion that occurs in the first weeks of pregnancy as murder. Because I do not perceive murder as problematic as long as it does not involve any harm to a conscious being capable of feeling pain/fear. Therefore, I also think that in addition to the important part that philosophy should play in the discussion about the legitimacy of abortion, science also has something to say on the subject.
One more question – You wrote in the article that you also see a difference between the murder of a person and the murder of a fetus, where does this division come from?
In any case, it was really interesting to read this article, like all your articles. Your ability to analyze and put things in order is astonishing…
The prohibition of murder cannot be established. It is entirely founded on moral intuitions, and by virtue of them it is also possible to make decisions without conceptualizations and definitions from the beginning. The prohibition of murder is not related to pain and awareness, but to being a person. If I drug a person and kill him, he will not be conscious and will not feel pain, and the prohibition of murder still stands.
The status of a fetus is accepted in all schools of thought as being between a biological cell and a human, simply because of the intermediate value theorem in infinitesimal calculus (and assuming that it is a continuous function):
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D
If at first it is a collection of molecules and at the end it is a human, then within this development the fetus goes through all the states between a collection of molecules and a human. The question of the line is of course not resolved here, but precisely because of this there is a prohibition of murder in the entire gray area. However, this prohibition is not uniform in the entire area, since it is likely that the strength of the prohibition is proportional to the strength of the humanness of the fetus at that stage.
The conclusion is that permits for prohibition can be found in more initial states than in the final state. It is a continuum, not something binary.
It can be argued that there is a stage where a soul enters, and then there is a discontinuity in the function. But even if this is true, I do not know anyone who knows how to point to this stage, and therefore we return to the same picture, except this time not on the axis of ambiguity but on the axis of doubt (for the difference between them, see book 12 in the Talmudic Logic series, and also here in the series that begins at column 322).
Assuming that the prohibition of murder is truly a prohibition based solely on moral intuition, I assume that its limits are also determined by moral intuition. Now, if you say that morality is an objective thing - it would seem more logical to follow the intuition of the majority precisely to determine what the law is (objectively) regarding a fetus. And if morality is subjective - then your intuition or that of any person regarding the law of fetal murder is irrelevant to another person and any statement on the subject would be equivalent to saying that it is forbidden because that is how you feel (which does not mean that the other person also feels that way).
In addition, you spoke of the possibility that there is a stage at which a soul enters that leads to a discontinuity in the function, so that it is possible to determine a point from which it is forbidden to harm the fetus. What is not clear to me is why not use consciousness for that discontinuity, since it is intuitively clear (at least to me and I believe to you too) that the prohibition of murder does not apply to a creature lacking consciousness, whether it is made of inorganic or organic materials (a robot, a stone, a dead person). And the point at which a person "acquires" consciousness can ostensibly be clarified using philosophical and scientific tools (the same tools we use to construct the perception that other humans and certain animals have consciousness and, conversely, robots, plants, and stones do not, and we also behave towards them in accordance with these perceptions). So why not use this point as the point of no return regarding the prohibition of murder in fetuses?
Even if you are right, why follow the majority? I act and judge according to my intuition. Beyond that, I did not establish any intuitive line, but rather the opposite: I argued that ambiguity and uncertainty require aggravation in any situation of doubt. Arbitrary establishment of a line will not be helpful here.
As for consciousness, I do not think that this is the measure. A creature with consciousness is a person, but that does not mean that the moment consciousness enters is the moment it becomes a person. I also do not see how you would determine when consciousness enters a fetus? I highly doubt whether a newborn baby also has consciousness.
I agree that there is no ideological necessity to follow the majority in moral matters. But if there is a way to discover objective morality (and assuming there is one, of course), I would expect that to be the way. What is more, I do not really understand your astonishment at people who have a different moral perception than you regarding the abortion of fetuses, it sounds like the basis for the opinions of both sides here is similar – moral intuition… Also, I assume that you published your articles regarding abortions for some purpose, but what is my actual impact on your perception of abortions if it is a completely subjective matter?
Regarding the matter of consciousness. Because of what you said, what I emphasized in my argument was the fact that intuitively we do not include the prohibition of murder on any object lacking consciousness (whether you call it a person or not). You can disagree with me that this statement is incorrect and I would be happy to give an example where it is incorrect if there is one, but if you agree with this I do not see what the problem is with proceeding according to this parameter.
Regarding the way in which it is possible to determine the presence of consciousness. I agree that there is no real way to definitively determine the existence of consciousness, but we still treat different creatures as having consciousness or not based on their behavior and whether they have the biological structures in their brains that are associated with consciousness. In a fetus, it is even easier because we know, even if only partially, the relationship between consciousness and the structures in our brains, and therefore it would be easy to extrapolate from them to a fetus.
I'll come back one last time. They don't have a different moral perception than mine. They cross an arbitrary line and ignore the fact that it's murder. They only talk about women's rights and act as if it's a trivial act with no moral significance. This is not a different position from mine, but rather wickedness as a result of brainwashing. That's all.
Regarding consciousness, we prohibit murdering a sleeping person, even though he or she currently has no consciousness. The active presence of consciousness is not a condition for prohibiting murder. The prohibition applies to beings with consciousness, but they don't have to have consciousness right now. Therefore, I see no justification for indifference towards the murder of fetuses who are beings with consciousness (humans), even if they currently have no active consciousness. I've already written to you that a newborn baby also has no consciousness. Is it permissible to murder him or her too?
That's it. I think we've exhausted it.
A certain tribe in Africa is known for the fact that all the natives have really black skin. The reason for this has occupied many researchers.
Until… one day a young anthropologist asked the women of the tribe various questions about their way of life,
and among other things, one of the women secretly told her that any new baby in the tribe whose skin color is not bright black, according to tribal law, is fed to the hungry crocodiles in the nearby sacred river, and this is how all the women of the tribe have done throughout history …
It turns out that these mothers are properly progressive feminists…
Maybe we should recommend accepting them as judges for the US Supreme Court”.
Come on, let's not get carried away,
This is not about a woman's right to her body, at all…
but about the perverted man's right to bed his girlfriend whenever he feels like it, even when he doesn't have contraception available at the moment.
And that's it.
I just saw an article about a crazy phenomenon in Göttingen, Germany, where in the name of equality, women are allowed to be in pools and water parks bare-chested, like men. This stupidity no longer belongs to ethics or humanity, but has completely crossed the boundaries of logic. I would suggest that in the name of equality, they allow women to be naked from the navel and not below, because in men the upper part starts higher than in women (they are taller on average than women).
https://travel.walla.co.il/item/3511554?dicbo=v2-5d0fde8b1e3b9319699b89e6c60fe89e
The analogy that says that equality between women and men is that both sexes are not supposed to expose private genitals in public, each according to their own organs. In other words, men are allowed to expose their chests but not their breasts, so even now there is inequality.