|
|
January 31, 2003
Complexities of abortion
Jewish law acknowledges different statuses of life.
PAT JOHNSON SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
If you think Judaism gives a yes or no answer to complex issues
such as abortion, then you don't know Judaism. That was one of the
messages that emerged from a debate on the abortion issue last week,
involving an obstetrician/gynecologist and a noted local rabbi.
Rabbi Avraham Feigelstock, spiritual leader of Eitz Chaim Synagogue
in Richmond and rosh kollel (head of the Ohel Ya'akov Community
Kollel, a community-based Jewish education and outreach institute),
said the Jewish tradition is far more nuanced and complex than the
traditional, evangelical Christian view that abortion equals the
murder of an unborn person.
"Anyone who says that Judaism is pro-life is making a mistake,"
said Feigelstock. "If anyone says Judaism is pro-choice, they
are also making a mistake."
Feigelstock lamented the fact that the debate in the general community
has developed into a strict and unbending issue of right and wrong.
"Unfortunately, it became either-or," he said.
The rabbi, who noted he has 13 children, acknowledged that the Jewish
concept of when life begins is not fully defined. Unlike the conservative
Christian view that life begins at conception, the rabbi said the
Jewish perspective states that, while a fetus has a certain sanctity
from the very outset, it exists on a continuum, its sanctity and
humanity increasing as it approaches the capacity to live outside
the womb. Though we use the term "fetus" from conception
to birth, Jewish law clearly places a different emphasis of sanctity
on the fetus at different periods in the gestation. While Christians
tend to argue that life begins at conception and ends at natural
death, Feigelstock said the Jewish view sees a fetus in the 40 days
after conception as a "future human being" but not as
a complete individual equal to a fully functioning living person.
When forced to balance such conflicting priorities as a mother and
a fetus, Jewish law reflects different statuses of life. The rabbi
said halachah (Jewish law) does not view the murder of a
terminally ill person in precisely the same manner as it views the
murder of a fully healthy individual. Similarly, a fetus, though
human, is of a lesser status than the mother.
There are some aspects of this debate that are fairly clear, Feigelstock
said. If a mother's life is in danger, halachah states an abortion
is fully acceptable. The other extreme is similarly clear. Aborting
a fetus because the pregnancy would interrupt a vacation is not
acceptable, he said.
What is far more grey is the area in between, he said. What if a
mother argues that an unwanted child will ruin her life? What if
she threatens to jump off a bridge in 30 minutes if an abortion
is not granted? What if the doctor believes the mother might introduce
a child to a life filled with abuse and neglect? What if tests indicate
the fetus will be born with a cleft palate, something that will
not likely kill a baby, but will put incredible stress and emotional
turmoil onto the mother? Feigelstock said halachah cannot predetermine
the position a rabbi, a doctor or a pregnant woman might be guided
by in such situations.
"Each case is different," Feigelstock asserted.
But he cautioned that there are unintended consequences of abortion,
as well. If a woman seeks an abortion because having a child and
giving it up for adoption would precipitate a major depression,
Feigelstock would remind the doctor and the woman that studies show
that many women who have abortions fall into a deep depression.
If avoiding depressive crises is the reason for an abortion, it
may fail in this goal, he said.
Feigelstock's overall view conflicts with the strictest pro-life
interpretation, which is frequently based on conservative Christian
interpretations. At its most extreme, the rabbi said, the pro-life
view is that two deaths are better than one "murder,"
which is the way some anti-abortion activists view abortion.
He also expressed concern that many activists who champion the rights
of the unborn do not reserve equal energy for protection and care
of children after they have been born.
Feigelstock was joined by Dr. Mark Rosengarten, an obstetrician
and gynecologist at B.C. Women's and Mount St. Joseph's hospitals,
who argued that medical abortions are necessary to prevent women
from seeking help in dangerous places. In one period when abortion
was illegal in Canada, a study found that 5,000 women died due to
botched abortions between 1927 and 1945. (Numbers for other years
are apparently untabulated or unknown.) Since the advent of relatively
accessible abortions, Rosengarten said, there have been no known
deaths due to abortion and a complication rate of about one per
cent is comparable to any surgical procedure.
Approximately 100,000 abortions take place in Canada each year.
British Columbia sees about 15,000 abortions a year, and about 40,000
live births.
Rosengarten and Feigelstock noted that general principles are shared
between medical professionals and halachic scholars. The medical
profession generally views the fetus in the first 24 weeks as less
than a viable human being but, after the 24th week, a viable human
life whose rights can supercede those of its mother.
The discussion on abortion was part of a series of informal gatherings
in people's homes. The event, on Jan. 22, was part of the Kollel's
Mind, Body, Soul lecture series. Feigelstock was filling in for
Joshua Hauser, president of the Institute for the Study of Bioethics,
a pro-life bioethics think-tank, who could not attend due to a family
health issue.
The discussion coincided with the 30th anniversary of the monumental
Roe versus Wade decision by the United States Supreme Court, which
decriminalized abortion and introduced a revolution in American
thinking and activism on the subject.
Canada's history on the issue has been more statist in development
than that in the United States. Abortion was illegal in Canada until
the late 1960s and, even after it was removed by Parliament from
the Criminal Code, access to abortion remained carefully proscribed
and difficult to access in certain parts of the country, particularly
rural areas. For two decades, battles raged between pro-life and
pro-choice supporters over control of hospital boards, which had
influence over the policy of individual hospitals regarding access
to abortion. By 1988, Canadian courts effectively struck down legislative
barriers to abortion and, because the House of Commons failed to
find consensus on the issue, it remains effectively ungoverned by
law.
Pat Johnson is a native Vancouverite, a journalist and
commentator.
^TOP
|
|
