{"id":3767,"date":"2019-05-21T12:08:33","date_gmt":"2019-05-21T12:08:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2019\/05\/21\/jews-and-abortion\/"},"modified":"2019-05-21T12:08:33","modified_gmt":"2019-05-21T12:08:33","slug":"jews-and-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2019\/05\/21\/jews-and-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"Jews and Abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud<\/a> indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b<\/a>)<\/span> asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is \u201cmere water.\u201d Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life \u2014 a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The above illustrates the pathetically low level of public discourse about abortion. Mere biology refutes the "mere water" nonsense, and the first clause of the first sentence. The only bit worthy of comment is the final sentence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many say that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body and any part thereof.  This is the Woman's Body Argument<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1) The fetus is a part of a woman's body.<\/span>
2) A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with any part of her body.<\/span>
Therefore<\/span>
3) A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with the fetus, including having it killed.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For this argument to be valid, 'part' must be used in the very same sense in both premises. Otherwise, the argument equivocates on a key term.  There are two possibilities. 'Part' can be taken in a wide sense that includes the fetus, or in a narrow sense that excludes it.<\/span><\/p>\n

If 'part' is taken in a wide sense, then (1) is  true. Surely there is a wide sense of 'part' according to which the fetus is part of its mother's body. But then (2) is reasonably rejected. Abortion is not relevantly like liposuction or the removal of swarts and tumors, etc.  Granted, a woman has a right to remove unwanted fat from her body via liposuction. Such fat is uncontroversially part of her body. But the fetus growing within her is not a part in the same sense: it is a separate individual life<\/em>. The argument, then, is not compelling. Premise (2) is more reasonably rejected than accepted.<\/span><\/p>\n

If, on the other hand, 'part' is taken in a narrow sense that excludes the fetus, then perhaps (2) is acceptable, but (1) is surely false: the fetus is plainly not<\/em> a part of the woman's body in the narrow sense of 'part.'<\/span><\/p>\n

The argument falls victim to an equivocation on 'part.'<\/span><\/p>\n

For those who cannot think without a pictorial aid:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Not<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

No doubt, women have reproductive rights. For example they have the right not to be forced by the state to procreate. But it cannot be assumed that the right to an abortion is automatically one of them. There is a grave moral issue here that Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and others of their ilk do not want you to see. But it is not going to go away and you need to address it as honestly as you can without obfuscatory rhetoric and with attention to biological fact.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here: Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in … Continue reading “Jews and Abortion”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[313],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}