Conference taveng::bagels

I hope this note doesn't turn into a Christian-bashing topic, and I hope
you substantiate charges you post here.

Are you opposing this wholesale infanticide?

Ask yourself:  Where was I when the babies were being killed?

/john

I hope we can keep this discussion from becoming a SOAPBOX-style abortion
debate.

There have certainly been outright anti-Semites who have used right-to-life
rallies to push their agenda (Josef Mlot-Mroz in the Boston area comes to
mind).  There's no doubt in my mind that many activists on both sides of
the issue are anti-Semites -- it simply follows from the large number of
anti-Semites in the population as a whole.

I think it's disingenuous to say that the right-to-life *movement* is
anti-Semitic, even if some of its supporters (or, if your claim about
Terry's statement is accurate, leaders) are anti-Semites.

I'd be more inclined to trust the ADL's assessment of the right-to-life
movement than I would People for the American Way.  I assume (hope, actually)
that the ADL hasn't taken a position on the abortion issue, and I gather
that PftAW has.

BTW, Halacha opposes abortion unless it's to save the mother's life.

>BTW, Halacha opposes abortion unless it's to save the mother's life.

This deserves more prominent mention than just a BTW at the bottom of a
note -- so I have brought it to the top of this one.

/john

.1>  I hope this note doesn't turn into a Christian-bashing topic, and I hope
.1>  you substantiate charges you post here.

I hope so, too, but I don't think that the intent of .0 was anything like
Christian-bashing.  It simply expresses concern that a particular anti-abortion
group, or a leader of such a group, might be using anti-Semitism as part of
its/his message.

This concern would be equally legitimate if the context was an anti-smoking or
Save the Whales organization.  Halacha's stand on abortion is another issue.

    
    During recent referenda regarding abortion in Republic of Ireland a
    particularly militant pro-life group called Youth Defence emerged. 
    Literature distributed by this group had a considerable anti-Semitic
    content.
    
    Celia.
    
    P.S. Should be noted that most pro-life campaigners in Ireland have
    distanced themselves from Youth Defence.

    re: .1
    
    well I guess I made a mistake.  I tried to point out in my note that
    the issue (regardless of one's personal/religious position) is NOT
    about abortion.  Nor is it about Christian-bashing.  Nor is it an effot
    to create a soapbox on either topic.  Apparently emotion runs a bit too
    strong.
    
    Instead, the issue has more to do with how some groups often have
    agenda other than their public one.  This is not only true with
    Operation Rescue (and I tend to trust People for the American Way), but
    other movements that seek to establish/enforce values, behavior, and
    correct political thinking. Generally these groups do not recognize or
    support diversity and hold those of different creeds hostile.
    
    Again, the issue is NOT abortion.  It is not a discussion of Christian,
    Jewish, or other positions on the subject.  A similar situation exists
    with a new wave of fundamentalist organizations that are seeking to
    re-introduce morality in public education.  Concerned Citizens for
    Education is such a group that seeks to establish a moral standard in
    public education that is often at odds with the needs, interests, and
    positions of other religious organizations.  Reports on such groups
    have been issued by the ADL, Wiesenthal Center, etc in addition to
    People for the American Way.
    
    Want another example?!  The new governor of Mississippi (Fordice) at a
    National Governors meeting stated there was a need to re-introduce
    family values in America , Christian values.  The governor of South
    Carolina questioned Fordice by asking don't you mean Judeo-Christian. 
    Fordice's reply was if that was what I meant I would have said it. 
    While this incident received some national coverage, it raised a stink
    in Miss.  Something that should be as inocuous as "family values" had a
    much different import for Fordice.
     

I wish you would provide sources, such as a specific newsletter with a date,
published by a specific group, and specifying what a specific person or group
has said on a specific date.

The title of this topic is "Operation Rescue and Jews".  Yet you are bringing
in all sorts of other organizations with different agendas, whether they relate
to the topic title or not.

/john

And for the record, it is NOT universally or even the majority view
in Judaism that abortion is "only to save the mother's life", at 
least in the American legal sense of the term.  That's one particular
view.  Another widespread view is that it's acceptable in the case
of a serious health risk (even mental) to the mother.  In any case,
the foetus is NOT viewed as a baby, but as part of the mother's body
until birth.  Thus abortion is sometimes viewed as amputation, which
is not done for fun either.

This is debated elsewhere; I'm just pointing out why O.R. and 
most Jews differ rather stridently.

    
    re:.7
    
    Publication:   Right-Wing Watch
                   A Publication of People for the American Way
    
    Date:          December 1992
                   Volume 3, No.3
    
    Page 4
    
    "Operation Rescue is trying something different this fall.  After a
    string of well-publicized failed "rescues" at women's health clinics
    earlier this year and losses at the polls in state initiatives in
    Arizona and Maryland, the Des Moines, Iowa chapter thought it had to
    get innovative.  Branching out from its anti-choice activities, OR
    decided to try Jew-bashing as their newest organizing tool.  After last
    month's election, a group of OR members picketed outside a Des Moines
    synagogue, Temple B'nai Jeshurun, urging worshipers to "leave your
    religion," and "go to the true religion".
    
    

Des Moines, Iowa.  The big city.

I wouldn't get worried unless lots of other chapters follow suit.

I can almost assure you that you won't see that sort of activity from
the Massachusetts chapter; the composition is much different -- mostly
people who know that conversion to Christianity (whether it be of Jews
or of Gentiles) comes from the heart, and that displays outside
synagogues which would be offensive to most members of the congregation
are counter-productive with respect to those who might be considering a
change for themselves.

/john

.10> Des Moines, Iowa.  The big city.
.10> 
.10> I wouldn't get worried unless lots of other chapters follow suit.
.10> 
.10> I can almost assure you that you won't see that sort of activity from
.10> the Massachusetts chapter; ...

For years, the parochialism of Bostonians has been a source of jokes.  But this
is the first time that I've heard it suggested that anti-Semitism outside the
borders of Massachusetts isn't something to get worried about.

If all they did was hold up signs, it's not anti-Semitism, it's over-zealous
adherence to the commandment to teach the whole world what Christ taught --
and it is definitely constitutionally protected free speech.

If they started blocking entrance or exit or stepped onto the synagogue's
property or made enough noise to be heard inside or even appeared to threaten
any member of the congregation coming or going or if they do this often or if
other chapters follow suit I think you can get worried.

Let's see if they are wise enough to find a more subtle way to obey "The
Great Commission".

BTW, Fordice has profusely apologized, and says that it is traditional moral
values that he is concerned about, and not the creation of any sort of state
religion.

/john

The behavior of Christians "suggesting" that Jews convert is, per se,
threatening behavior. It evokes memories of the Inquisition and the 
Holocaust.

Dave

.12> If all they did was hold up signs, it's not anti-Semitism, it's over-zealous
.12> adherence to the commandment to teach the whole world what Christ taught --
.12> and it is definitely constitutionally protected free speech.

I'm quite prepared to accept that what the group did is protected by the U.S.
Constitution.  But I don't at all agree that "holding up signs" is by
definition not anti-Semitic.  Would you consider displaying a sign that said
"Kill All Blacks" not to be racist?

Feeling threatened by other people practicing their religion in a
non-threatening manner is over-sensitivity.  The signs certainly did not
suggest killing Jews! However, I really do think these evangelicals should
concentrate on people other than observant Jews at their synagogue! 
Clearly it is more important to bring pagans and nominal Christians to the
faith than to evangelize good practicing Jews.

I've been reading the Jerusalem Post International Edition for the past
couple of months, and I've noticed something very interesting, which
seems to be a repeated pattern.

One week it was filled with very negative articles about the major
Christian Churches in Jerusalem -- the Greek Orthodox, the Roman
Catholics, and the Anglicans, with an especially hostile editorial
about Bishop Samir Kafity, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem and President
Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East, who
had just joined with the other bishops in Jerusalem to work with the
Moslems on the status of Christians in the Holy Land.

The next week it was filled with glowing articles about evangelicals
who are working to bring as many Jews as possible to Israel and to
convert them.  I'm not sure whether the article mentioned (because I
already knew) that these "Zionist Christians" believe that the conversion
of the Jews will hasten the second coming of Christ.

It is of note that on "1 Advent" of this year, a Sunday which has the
second coming as its theme, Bishop Vach� preached a sermon in St. George's
Cathedral in Jerusalem at a Mass presided over by Bishop Kafity in which he
spoke strongly _against_ such self-centered motives for evangelism.

The Catholic position is that the Covenant with the Jews is valid and that
the Jewish religion is a valid religion (which does not mean that Catholics
do not hope that Jews will someday embrace a truly Jewish form of Christianity).

Yet the Jerusalem Post extols the virtues of evangelicals of the type who
are standing outside synagogues in Des Moines and bashes Catholics and their
bishops.

Instead it should be encouraging the various communities in Jerusalem --
Jewish, Christian, and Moslem -- to work together for the peace of that
scandalously embattled "holy" city.

/john

    re:.15
    
    
    
    1) Throughout modern history (i.e, the establishment of institutional
    christianity, not the early christian period) Jews have been subject to
    a fundamental choice: conversion and assimilation vs physical
    elimination.  True of the great Jewish migrations throughout Europe
    during the Middle Ages.  True under the Tsars when Jews were threatened
    with the combination of pogroms and forced conversions.  Notably in the
    mid-1800s when Jewish boys were "conscripted" into the Russian army for
    terms of 20 years as a means of forced assimilation.
    
    2) In just about every culture and country, Christian and Moslem, Jews
    have been subjected to pressures to convert.  Any effort, no matter how
    benign, to prosletize (spelling) has been viewed by the Jewish
    community not only as a personal and religious affront, but a threat.
    
    3) Try promoting conversion in Israel.  Chances the first time will
    find you in the police station.  Second offense will most likely
    find you outside the country.  I seriously doubt that the Jerusalem
    Post extols the virtues or activities of fundamentalists or
    evangelicals.  Instead, many Israelis acknowledge that the American
    evalgelical movement has been pro-Israeli believeing the ingathering of
    exiles will hasten the coming (or from a Christian perspective a second
    coming) of the Messiah.  But that's it.  Former Prime Minister Begin
    often capitalized on this special relationship with American
    evangelicals as a second pro-Israel lobby.
    
    4) Having lived and worked in Israel I can assure you that the
    government and public at large do NOT support prosoletyzing.  One day I
    was travelling from Jerusalem to Haifa.  Met an American sailor from
    the USS Kennedy (which called on Haifa).  This chap was a bit exercised
    over the hostile attitude Israelis had toward Christians.  Asked him
    what he meant.  Response was he was an evangelical and Chaplin's
    Assistant on the Kennedy.  Was handing out evangelical literature in
    Jerusalem and in response was jostled, yelled at, and harrassed by a
    crowd.  Was later warned by the police to cease his activities.  I
    tried to impress upon him that: a) he needed to be sensititive to the
    history of the Jewish people and look at his efforts in that light, b)
    that many Israelis are first or second generation immigrants that have
    escaped persecution and view messages to convert as a threat, and c)
    that Israel is a theocracy and very much a Jewish state.  While he
    understood a and b, he could not grasp the concept of a Jewish state
    with a Jewish majority, with Jewish laws.  His experience and
    expression was that from on of a Christian country with Jews as a
    minority that may be more "accepting" of conversion.
    
    5) Also recognize that the whole concept of proselytizing (whether
    subtle or overt) is one of rejection.  Essentially, the message is your
    religion, your personal beliefs are not valid.  Your beliefs are wrong. 
    Ergo, join the true religion.  No matter who delivers the message
    (status or religion) the message is the same.  For Jews, be they in Des
    Moines or Jerusalem that message is very much an affront and threat,
    and will be addressed as such.
    
    6) Finally a note on multi-religious activity in Jerusalem.  The
    Israeli government and the city government under Kollek have undertaken
    what I think has been a wise course of action when it comes to
    Christian and Moslem churches, shrines, and ritual in the city.  It is
    generally one of staying out of the way, not to embroil a Jewish
    goverment in the activities of other religions beyond the day to day
    operations of the city.  For example, for years various Christian sects
    have had arguements, demonstrations, and fights over the staus and
    control of the Holy Seplecur (spelling).   I was there when all hell
    broke loose between the Copts and several other groups.  The government
    refused to interven, but encouraged the groups to work things out.  Do
    not assume that this course of action by the government is support for
    any kind of evangelical activity.  It is not.  Just an effort to keep
    some calm in the city. 
                                    

    re: .12 Fordice profusely apologized...
    
    Not true.  A good friend  a rabbi in Mississippi.  Matter of fact Steve
    is the only rabbi in Mississippi.  When the Fordice comment made the
    news, Steve was asked to respond (as the only Jewish religious leader). 
    He and Fordice eventually had a meeting.  Fordice wanted it private. 
    Steve and the ADL said no.  Eventually the meeting was held with one or
    two observers.  Fordice NEVER apologized for what he said.  He did say
    he was sorry if he hurt anybody's feelings or offended the community,
    but that he stood by his original statement.
    
    What's important is NOT that he may have offended Jews and non-Jews. 
    Jews have dealt with more extereme statements and survived.  What is
    important is Fordice's beliefs, his position, how he views people of
    other cultures, religions, beliefs, etc.  And as the original intent of
    this note tried to point out, there are people and organizations that
    may rally around a given cause, but have a second agenda.  And you're
    correct: the carrying of a sign telling Jews to convert is not a
    physical threat.  But to me, as a Jew, the message is that I and my
    community are taken as a threat by the person carrying the sign.  Why? 
    Cause he/she just won't leave me alone.  Won't let me enjoy my
    religion, my culture, my history.  Can't accept me as an equal, but
    feels compelled to tell me what to believe and eventually how to act.

    Most americans not born of Jewish parents do not understand why we 
    find their prostelitizing (spelling) so offensive.  They have no
    concept of the persecutions which each of our ancestors went through. 
    No Jews would have ever come to this country were it not for the
    anti-jewish activities in Europe and the Middle East.
    
    My wife has chosen to convert and is now studying for conversion.  She
    did not understand what I was talking about when I would discuss with
    her my personal experiences with Anti-Semitism both organizational and
    individual.  Since she has begun her conversion process she is shocked
    and outraged by the overtly Anti-Semitic attitudes and statements of
    many of her family members, friends and co-workers.
    
    From my understanding of christian ethics the life of a baby is more
    important than the survival of either of its parents.  This also
    carries into groups such as OR which oppose any form of birth control. 
    They seem to feel that sexual expression within the context of a loving
    relationship is wrong unless it leads to procreation.  This is the
    reason that many churchs hold those who lead a monastic life in higher
    esteem than those who lead a family life that includes a healthy sexual
    relationship.

>    From my understanding of christian ethics the life of a baby is more
>    important than the survival of either of its parents.

Except for a few fanatics, Christians do not oppose abortion if it is truly
necessary to save the life of the mother.  Of course, a mother may choose
to give up her life to save the life of the child, but that is a free choice.

I doubt that there is any significant difference between the Halacha and
Christian teaching on abortion.  Life is a gift from God, and we should not
presume to destroy it, unless it is absolutely necessary to save our own
lives.

>    They seem to feel that sexual expression within the context of a loving
>    relationship is wrong unless it leads to procreation.

A significant number (but not all) Christians believe that all sexual
expression must be _open_ to the possibility of the transmission of life.
However, the unitive aspect of human sexuality is not denied.  "Therefore
a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become
one flesh."  Gn 2:24.

The celibate life is a calling for some, but is not held "in higher esteem"
than the life described in Gn 2:24.

/john

Re: .19
>I doubt that there is any significant difference between the Halacha and
>Christian teaching on abortion.

Halacha says that as long as the fetus is attached to the mother by the
umbilical cord it is a part of the mother and protected by the laws concerning
self-mutilation. My understanding of the Christian fundamentalist viewpoint
is that the fetus is a human life and, further, is a lost soul unless
baptised and brought into the Church. The significant difference is that,
by Jewish law, the mother is important whereas, by Christian doctrine, the
baby is important (since the mother is already "saved"). This focus on the
mother vs the baby makes abortion permissible in more circumstances under
Halacha than under Christian doctrine.

This difference also shows up in what happens when (G-d forbid) there is an
extremely difficult birth and the doctor can save either the mother or
the baby but not both. I was told that a Jewish doctor would save the
mother while a Christian (Catholic?) doctor would save the baby. This
attitude made Jewish obstetricians quite popular back in the days when
the state of technology made this terrifying decision more likely than it
is now.

Dave

>The significant difference is that, by Jewish law, the mother is important
>whereas, by Christian doctrine, the baby is important (since the mother is
>already "saved").

This is not the teaching of the Church at all.  The reason the baby's life
is important is because of the dignity of the human person.  All humans
have equal dignity, whether they are Christian or not.

A primary scriptural soruce for the Church's teaching on human dignity even
in the womb is Psalm 139:12-15:

For you yourself created my inmost parts;
  you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I will thank you because I am marvelously made;
  your works are wonderful, and I know it well.

My body was not hidden from you,
  while I was being made in secret,
  and woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes beheld my limbs, yet unfinished in the womb;
all of them were written in your book;
  they were fashioned day by day,
  when as yet there was none of them.

>This difference also shows up in what happens when (G-d forbid) there is an
>extremely difficult birth and the doctor can save either the mother or
>the baby but not both. I was told that a Jewish doctor would save the
>mother while a Christian (Catholic?) doctor would save the baby.

There is no such teaching of the Church.  And according to the notes on the
Halacha in topic 75, once the birth process begins both the mother and the
baby are considered equal and the doctor must make equal efforts to save
both.

/john

    re .19 & .20
    >I doubt that there is any significant difference between the Halacha
    >and Christian teaching on abortion.
    
    From my uderstanding there are differences.  Halacha does deal with the
    life of a baby and my understanding is that a baby is not considered a
    seperate entity containg a soul until birth.
    
    On the original topic; despite what some people believe this is not a
    *christian* nation.  Those who chose to come to this country whether
    Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddist ... came here because we claim to be
    a pluralistic society.  This applies to those who came here 400 years
    ago and it applies now.  As many will note the phrase *under god* was
    not added to the pledge of allegience(sp) until the 1950's.  As for the
    hidden agendas of groups such as OR, they claim that we need *family*
    values, their code word for christian values.  Although this is off of
    the direct subject, another of their agenda items is school prayer.  As
    we all know there is nothing to prohibit prayer, only public prayer is
    not allowed.  Would these people be happy if public prayer were allowed
    in school and a child who was in to *statanism* performed one of
    his/her public rituals.  I doubt it; they want only their  type of
    prayer to be in public.
    
    Now I will get off of my soapbox!
    
    Mark

While it's possible that the reasoning behind the Halacha and the teaching
of the Church on abortion are different, the resulting rules are very much
the same.

We have a common goal -- respecting the gift of life.

Thus I think it would be much better if Jewish and Christian people would
spend more time working together to reduce the number of abortions rather
than arguing over the reasons we both forbid abortion.

/john

.23>  Thus I think it would be much better if Jewish and Christian people would
.23>  spend more time working together to reduce the number of abortions rather
.23>  than arguing over the reasons we both forbid abortion.

As should be clear from previous notes in this topic, the statement that "we
both forbid abortion" is simply wrong.  How can we possibly "spend more time
working together" in an area in which you refuse to recognize our position?

>As should be clear from previous notes in this topic, the statement that "we
>both forbid abortion" is simply wrong.

Huh?  The last line of .2 says that Halacha forbids abortion except to save
the life of the mother.  We hold the same position.

>How can we possibly "spend more time working together" in an area in which
>you refuse to recognize our position?

Huh?  I haven't refused anything.  I recognize the position stated in .2.

Halacha and Christian teaching oppose abortion.  Let's work together to
reduce the number of abortions.  Is that not a common goal?

/john

�>As should be clear from previous notes in this topic, the statement that "we
�>both forbid abortion" is simply wrong.

�Huh?  The last line of .2 says that Halacha forbids abortion except to save
�the life of the mother.  We hold the same position.

Note that your position isn't the same as Halacha, which *requires* an
abortion if the life of the mother is threatened. But, religious Jews who
are not Orthodox do not follow Halacha, and I know that the Reform
organization (Union of American Hebrew Congregations) is distinctly
pro-choice, as are probably the Conservative and Reconstructionist
organizations.

�Halacha and Christian teaching oppose abortion.  Let's work together to
�reduce the number of abortions.  Is that not a common goal?

I am not sure that even Orthodox Halacha opposes abortion to anywhere near
the extent of the Catholic hierarchy (but someone Orthodox should answer
for their position). Note that it isn't even correct to say that
"Christian" teaching favors making abortion illegal -- it is my impression
that most mainstream (as opposed to fundamentalist) Protestant churches are
pro-choice. Most non-Orthodox Jewish organizations would say that we should
work together to reduce the number of abortions, and that a good way to do
this is to encourage the use of contraception -- which I understand is
contrary to the position of the Catholic hierarchy (but not that of most
Catholics).

    If people are truly interested in reducing the number of abortions,
    then they should provide far better education about, and accessibility to
    birth control, for both married and unmarried women. They should also
    prevent rapists, child molesters, wife/partner abusers, and all others
    who use sexual abuse as a substitute for normal relationships, from
    having access to our women and girls, by whatever means possible. They
    should provide job training and job opportunities to prevent girls from
    looking to prostitution as a source of income. They should teach young
    men that if they get young women pregnant, the fathers have a moral
    obligation to help provide for, and care for the resulting child. They
    should encourage the government and other agencies to fund medical
    research, in order to prevent birth-defects and genetic diseases.
    
    Only by removing the reasons for abortions can you hope to reduce their
    number. 
    
    Judy
    

    I'm not sure quite how to say this, but....
    
    isn't there a more appropriate forum elsewhere for this discussion??
    
    The original topic was about a specific incident where an
    anti-aborotion group, finding no one in particular to attack during a
    protest, started attacking non-Christians in the area instead.
    
    Now we are discussing abortion as a politico-social issue instead. 
    it's an issue people have and will continue to disagree on, but I think
    it has gone far afield from the original posting.
    
    /Charlotte

    RE:  .28
    
    I agree with Charlotte.
    
    There are several discussions on the abortion topic in 
    
      LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    
    John Covert is active in these discussions.  If any of us wants to
    learn more about his point of view, it is amply documented in C-P.
    
    L
    

    re: .28
    
    As the one who initiated this topic I agree with Charlotte as well.  
    
    harry

    What should be made clear is that under Jewish law a soul is not
    recognized as such until birth, not conception.  Therefore the issue of
    saving the mother's life is not "pro-life" as defined by the
    anit-abortion movement, but it's the fact that the mother is the only
    life (I wish that I could find another term!) that is recognized.
    
    By the same token Judaism only allows abortion in cases of threats to
    the mother's life, rape, incest, etc.  It is not a means of birth 
    control under Halacha.
    
    Re:Des Moines -- This is not only blatant provinciality, but ignorance
    as well.  What do you Des Moines is, a cornfield populated by hayseeds
    who don KKK sheets at night?!  It's a modern American city populated by
    people who are cognizant of the world outside of Iowa.  Anti-Semitism
    and Racism should be as unacceptable there as well as the
    "cosmopolitan centres of culture".
    
    --David
     

>    What should be made clear is that under Jewish law a soul is not
>    recognized as such until birth, not conception.  Therefore the issue of
>    saving the mother's life is not "pro-life" as defined by the
>    anit-abortion movement, but it's the fact that the mother is the only
>    life (I wish that I could find another term!) that is recognized.

	Not clear at all!! What do you base these statements on?
	By Halacha (Jewish Law), a child is recognized as an independent
	Human life from conception according to some opinions and from
	about the 7th or 8th WEEK according to other opinions. 
	Anti-abortion definitely IS a "pro-life" issue.
    
>    By the same token Judaism only allows abortion in cases of threats to
>    the mother's life, rape, incest, etc.  It is not a means of birth 
>    control under Halacha.

	No, no, no. Jewish Law does NOT allow abortion in cases of "rape,
	incest, etc.".  The ONLY criteria is LIFE, be it the mother's
	life or the baby's. ( Yes, the mother's life takes precedence).

	Some extreme cases of emotional problems may be regarded as a
	threat to the life of the mother even if it is not a physical
	threat, but a qualified Rabbi must be consulted in all such
	cases.
	
	There is room for some other considerations up to the 2nd month
	of pregnancy (according to the '7th or 8th WEEK' opinion
	mentioned above) but even then you'll be hard-pressed to find a
	qualified (orthodox) Rabbi who will allow an abortion for social
	or financial reasons.

-Itzhak

	>Not clear at all!! What do you base these statements on?
	>By Halacha (Jewish Law), a child is recognized as an independent
	>Human life from conception according to some opinions and from
	>about the 7th or 8th WEEK according to other opinions. 
	>Anti-abortion definitely IS a "pro-life" issue.
    
    You said the magic word, OPINION.  As far as I know, and I admit I am
    not a halachic authority, a fetus does not take precedence over the
    mother's life.  This was true in the birth of my sister who was born
    very prematurely.  before the operation, my grandmother was asked whose 
    life should be saved, the mother or child.  Thank G_D both are here and
    alive and well, but my grandmother was astounded by such a question.
    
    This abuse of the word "life" is just that.  People who favor abortion
    rights are "anti-life".  The use of the term is used for emotionalism,
    which after all was the psychological basis of fascism.  Now I'm saying
    that anti-abortion people are fascists, any more than those on the
    other side of the issue.  But your physical distance from the political
    movements gives you a mistaken impression.  
        
    --David

>a fetus does not take precedence over the mother's life.

No one has ever claimed it does.

    John, I wouldn't take opinions as proof that Judaism supports the
    Anti-Abortion movement.  Although Judaism does not support the
    pro-choice side either, I doubt that you will find representatives of
    Orthodox or Conservative movements joining you on the picket lines
    outside clinics.
    
    I'm also not surprised to see anti-semites in the "pro-life" movement. 
    These worms turn up in any grouping that is to the right of center.
    
    --David

I think you can find your villain in any organization.

NPR is not "right of center", but the Jerusalem Post last week called its
reporting anti-Semitic.

Applying the characterization "anti-Semitic" to the pro-life movement
is a bit over-the-top, don't you think?

/john

	Correction-
	During Shabbat I consulted a local authority on the subject who
	corrected me on one point. Although rape is definitely NOT
	considered a justification for an abortion, Halacha WILL allow
	abortions in some - but not all -  cases of incest.  He didn't
	have time to go into detail but he emphasized to me again that a
	qualified Rabbi had to be consulted because the related laws are
	intricate. (As I mentioned before, sometimes the emotional state
	of the mother plays a part).
	
	Clarification-
	In no way do I want to appear as supporting or not supporting any
	particular group or movement. I know almost nothing about these
	organizations so I can't state any opinion about them. 
	
	My wife is a social worker in Israel and often deals with cases
	involving abortions. She consults with a Rabbinic authority to
	guide her in the help she can offer her clients. In just about
	every case, the abortion is not justified and she tries advise
	against it.
	
-Itzhak

	
	

Re: .33
    
>    You said the magic word, OPINION.  As far as I know, and I admit I am
>    not a halachic authority, a fetus does not take precedence over the
>    mother's life.
	
	You're absolutely correct and I stated that a few lines later in 
	the same reply. Maybe I didn't emphasize it enough so I'll say it 
	again - 

	the mother's life always takes precedence over that of the fetus 
	when there is a threat to both.

	BTW, the opinions stated were not mine. They are legal 
	interpretations in the Halachic sources. I'm also not an authority
        on the subject.

-Itz

.36>	Applying the characterization "anti-Semitic" to the pro-life movement
.36>	is a bit over-the-top, don't you think?

It certainly would be, if anyone were to do so.  Has anyone done so in this
conference?

    CLARIFICATION:
    
    I did NOT refer to an organization as anti-semitic, what I said was that
    the anti-abortion movement can attract those of the political (of the
    right, a la Buchanan, et.al.) anti-semitic variety.  This "attraction"
    has also been true of the left e.g., in connection with issues of the
    Mideast.
    
    Personally I don't think that Jewish organizations should involve
    themselves with either side of the abortion issue.  Jewish indviduals
    can and should, if they feel strongly enough about it.
    
    --David 

    I believe that most (at least most non-Orthodox) Jewish women in the
    USA support the pro-choice movement.  We believe that the decision to
    have an abortion is the woman's choice and that the state should not
    interfere.
    
    On this heated subject I must add that being pro-choice is merely that
    and should not be over-interpreted about the individual women's
    attitudes, beliefs and feelings.
    
    I believe that most American women do not view abortion as a method of
    birth control, do not take abortion casually, and recognize the grave
    moral questions and emotional issues involved, as well as the
    restrictions and guidelines imposed by the many religions in America.
    
    In this particular Notes string, it is important to differentiate
    between the status of abortion in Israel and in America.  Israel
    functions under halacha and is a religious state.  America is a civil
    society with the separation of church and state.  
    
    For example, one may not raise pigs on the land of Israel.  I've heard
    that some farmers get around this by keeping the pigs on raised
    platforms.  In America, the concept of tref has no bearing and one may
    freely raise pigs.  An observant Jew will not raise pigs in the US,
    despite the freedeom to do so.  That is an individual choice.
    
    In America, the position of observant Jews on abortion is a personal
    position, as is that of observant Catholics and those of other
    religions.  I believe that it should remain this way.
    
    The American Jewish community handles the abuse of abortion mucn in the
    way it handles other serious halachic infractions.  This varies from
    one congregation to another, ranging from ignoring the problem (if it
    is even publicly known) to censuring the individual.
    
    L

This string has been dead for a while, but this really got me....
    =
>Note 1291.15                Operation Rescue and Jews                   15 of 41
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      43 lines  16-DEC-1992 18:17
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The Catholic position is that the Covenant with the Jews is valid and that
>the Jewish religion is a valid religion (which does not mean that Catholics
>do not hope that Jews will someday embrace a truly Jewish form of Christianity).

    And, of course, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Jews hope that
    Christianity will someday just leave us be.
                                               
    I've been asked to join the "true faith" too many times to count!
    
    Daniel

    Hi John,
    
    Re: .-1
    
    I would also like to comment if you don't mind.
    
>the Jewish religion is a valid religion 
    
    As it's been put if the Jewish faith is valid why do they need saving ?
    Why do they need Christ ?  I have never understood this argument at
    all.  Also the Jewish faith gave birth to the Christian so why not look
    at the roots of your religion and accept them.  By trying to convert
    Jews to Christianity are you saying that the religion is not complete ?
    If so than G-d must have made a mistake !!! I just find the whole thing
    a bit of a farce to say the least.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

re .43 -- no mistake at all.  But back to the topic.

Jerusalem Post International Edition, Week ending April 3, 1993.  Back page.
Full color picture with the following caption:

Former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Modechai Eliahu meets with Cardinal Bernard
Law of Boston, who visited Israel last week.  Eliahu, who had visited Law
during an earlier trip to the US, discussed issues of common humanitarian
concern with the Catholic cleric.  Among other things, the two concurred
in their opposition to abortion.