C’mon, you know full well that if Roe is overturned, a good number of states will protect unborn children by law. This is a false argument that somehow McCain and Palin are pro-abortion because they favor allowing states to have the right to protect human life.
They know full well, as does the pro-life movement, which has fought for 35 years to reverse Roe, that our current state of abrotion — allowing it throughout pregnancy for any reason — is too much.
The REAL question is why there is no condemnation of Obama, who wants Roe to continue for another 35 years — killing 50 million more babies before birth and injuring millions of women physically, emotionally and spiritually.
But you won’t ask that question because it’s easier to provide Obama with political cover by questioning the other side’s earnestness in a question that’s absurd on its face.
The truth is that Obama will sign a bill giving us 100-200,000 more abortions a year: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html
Trash McCain and Palin if you wan’t but don’t accuse them of not being pro-life because they’re pro-life. That’s just silly.

If you recall, when Ruth Ginsburg was nominated for the Supreme Court, she made a stir because she too argued that while the result of Roe was a positive step, the reasoning behind it was not. If the privacy we were trying to protect would be the right to make a private religious decision, ie. my religion holds that life begins at X, or my religion protects the life of the mother until Y, we might have a more productive and meaningful debate.

Part of the problem is that one of the ways to cut abortions down to eliminate the reasons for them(IE fewer unintended pregnancies should result in a lower demand for abortion) The problem is that Sarah Palin, and John McCain advocate the Abstinence only education method, which has been found to be unreliable. If you don’t believe me, look at Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter for proof. I come from a Fairly open-minded family where sex was discussed openly(IE the “Comprehensive Sex Education” method) which at its core says:”we want you to delay having sex, but if you’re going to do it, here’s how to minimize the risks of unintended consequences”. Even former Surgeon general Jocylyn Elders knew it, when she went on record to want to teach kids that there were physical alternatives to sex, such as autoerotica, which were natural.
The other problem is that different faiths teach differently aboput when life actually starts(for Catholics its Conception, for some Protestants its when there is heartbeat, and traditional Jews when the fetus hits the air). Thus you can’t have the religious dogmas separated from the discussion, as someone would be unhappy, no matter which way you went
I guess that while Roe V Wade’s Results were good, the logic was rather reaching. which begs the question of the Ends justifying the Means. Do they, or do they never justify them?

If McCain and Palin believe that “Life begins at conception” — then they should not be running for office in a secular democratic country. Seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade means that the State (or the Federal Government is the appropriate ammendment was passed) would be empowered to enforce a RELIGIOUS point of view on everyone else.
I agree that it is morally (and ethically) wrong for Planned Parenthood to fail to provide the CHOICE of abortion vs. carrying a pregnancy to full term and choosing other options. After all, we are talking about “Freedom of Choice” — not a mandate for abortion.
Nevertheless, to aassert that one will try to IMPOSE (or allow others to IMPOSE) a specific BELIEF about the “rights of the fetus” will pose a far greater danger and is (to my mind) nothing short of religious persecution.

Conception results from participating in a reproductive act, to state the obvious. Is it not also obvious that this participation is driven by a desire primarily for physical pleasure? You can call it love or lust, it’s still about getting physical satisfaction.
The participants occasionally have an inconvenient outcome, namely that one of them gets pregnant. They didn’t want a child in the first place so this unwelcome development needs to be disposed of, not unlike making arrangements with a pest control company to rid one’s house of insects or vermin.
But here’s where the deal breaks down. The unwelcome guest is another human being. To eliminate this person is to eliminate another human. That’s murder.
So. pleasure made us do the deed, and convenience makes us eliminate the short term consequences.
Roe vs. Wade just made this transaction legal, not right. A small dead human being is put in the pail for disposal. How’s your satisfaction level? Shall we do “it” again?
The reason for McCain/Palin to suggest having the states legislate the issue is because they know that human nature being what it is, abortions are still going to occur in rather large numbers, illegal or not. Therefore one has to recognize that historical fact and allow the states’ citizens who want this to remain legal to have this option. I suspect that the citizens of Midwestern and Southern states are more likely to
impose barriers and coastal cities more likely not to, reflecting cultural and religious preferences. One hopes that eventually abortion will be as socially unacceptable as smoking but that will take generations for that cultural change to take place. A million babies per year in the disposal pail is a great wrong.
When a woman is carrying a baby to term and gives birth, we call the child “her baby.” And while the woman and her partner must care for that child for the next 15-20 years, the child is not her property anymore than an employee is the property of a company or boss. The child isn’t owned by anyone. We do not have the right to take that unborn child’s life anymore than we do of an employee we wish to be rid of because we don’t “own” either one. The pregnant woman is the host of that human, not it’s owner. She has rights over her own body but does not have a right over the human in her body.
What she does have the right to do is to protect her own body by taking steps to not get pregnant, either through mechanical or chemical barriers to the semen, or through abstinence.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this, written by an old Jew in Michigan.

Arguing never helps. Abortion didn’t help me. It devistated even my children because they felt guilty that they got to live and their siblings didn’t. We all live with continued emptiness over it even 30 years later. The emptyness will never be filled. How does this create a stronger nation when we create people with hollow hearts through abortion? If you want a strong nation why keep killing the people before they are born. We need to reverse Roe. It’s personal, it’s political, it’s spiritual. I am not voting for Obama.

Thanks Rabbi – for saying so well how I feel. You hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. I do not think this county will be able to change this law until women and children – motherhood and childhood is given of place of honor and respect and men step up to the plate and act responsibly. We pay teachers poorly and schools are cutting their budgets. Our tax dollars seem to do more for the rich who pay less.
We need a moral renewal in this country. We need to care about others and we need to be our brothers keeper. I am voting for Obama as I see the Democratic Party as the more compassionate group in spite of the pro-choice chance. If we can make this country a more compassionate country it will eventually flow around to women and children, and yes unborn children too. When people feel they are being fairly treated by the ruling forces in gov. a spirit of fairness towards all has a better chance to prevail. We cannot demand that people make a religious choice, but we can live the “Golden Rule”: not do to anyone else what we would not want to be done to us and to cover our brothers sins with loving acceptance of them as persons so they can choose to change destructive ways of living and know that they matter. Free choice is not really free choice. It’s a choice driven by fear and a personal hunger; the bars of materialism and baggage thats comes with self centered values. People who act out of a need for power feel without hope and powerless, feel abused or have been abused is my opinion.

Pat – old Jew in Michigan – I really liked your post, thanks for it. I just got done posting mine and I am an aging Jew in California. I think our two posts have interlocking threads. Shalom and La Shana Tova from Chana

Very few people who opine on Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), have read the decision. The Court has to decide cases based upon constitutional principles. As Justice Blackmun pointed out, quoting a prior Supreme Court case, “The Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views …” Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) Thus, the Court knew that the case involved emotionally charged views. The Court should not, however, lower itself to the emotionalism nor may it adopt one person’s religion voer another’s religion.
The legal question of regulating abortion grows from the Declaration of Independence which identifies three unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Of these three unalienable rights, only Liberty is explicitly mentioned in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the legal document which separated us from Great Britain, but the Constitution is the document which establishes our nation. When the Constitution states that its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” our legal system has to place a premium on Liberty.
Why does the Constitution expressly refer to Liberty and not to Life? The short answer is that the Constitution was establishing a Republic and the cornerstone of a Republic is individual liberty. I assume that Life is not mentioned as everyone knew that protecting the lives of the citizens was one of the objectives, as well as protecting property rights, and personal privacy. The Bill of Rights had to be added before the colonies would ratify the constitution. That’s how important individual liberty was to the funding fathers and to the general public. The first amendment protected the privacy right of the individual to freedom of religion, the privacy right to associate with other people, the right to think and say one’s mind. The second amendment protected the privacy right to keep and bear arms. The 4th amendment protects people ‘in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
While Roe v Wade said that privacy was at the penumbra of the Constitution, the right to privacy is at the Constitution’s core and in inseparable from Liberty. If you remove a zone of privacy, you allow the government to dominate each person’s life. Without privacy, our nation would be like Red China 20 years ago. Without privacy, there is no liberty.
Roe v Wade mediated between two competing unalienable rights: Liberty v. Life. Does the Constitution have a prohibition on taking a life? No, it does not. In fact, the Constitution says that both life and liberty may be taken in accordance with “due process of law.” Thus, from a Constitutional viewpoint, both the right to liberty and the right to life are on equal footing.
The court devises a reasonable balance between the competing right of the mother to her individual Liberty over her person and the unborn fetus’ right to Life. For the first trimester, the decision to abort rests with the mother and her physician. During the second trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonable related to the maternal health, and during the last trimester(viability), the state may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the month’s life or health.
There are some who want to replace Constitution law with their own religious dogma. Because their religion holds that Life begins at conception, they believe that all abortion should be forbidden. These people want to impose their religious dogma on to other religions who believe that life does not begin at conception and others who believe that even if life begins at conception, the mother has the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Whose religion should the law adopt? No one’s. No religion should be so arrogant to believe that only its dogma is correct.
Roe v Wade does not infringe on anyone’s right not to have an abortion. The decision is not coercive. It does not impose any religious dogma upon any person. Those who want to repeal Roe v Wade always want to force other people to live their lives according to another religion’s dogma.
The opponents to Roe v Wade overlook a basic fact. The issue in Roe v Wade is who decides whether there is an abortion? The State or the individual? If Roe v Wade is over turned, the State decides who can have an abortion. In 20 years, the government could become like China and limit families and mandate abortions for any woman who has one living child. People who had two children could become criminals. It would be extreme folly for Americans to turn over to the government the power to force a woman must have an abortion against her wishes. Roe not only allows a mother to have an abortion; it also protects the mother from being forced to have an abortion. Freedom of Choice means that the government does not make private decisions.
If there is no right to privacy (Liberty) in the area of abortion, then the government could decide that Downs Syndrome children are too expensive and require pre-natal testing and their abortion without regard to the mother’s desire to deliver and care for the baby.
The dogmatic religiosity of the far right attacks the unalienable right to Liberty which is the core of our social compact that ties us together as one nation indivisible. If the Court overturns Roe and declares the right to privacy to be null and void, then all other privacy rights are in danger. In Kelo v City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Supreme court in effect abolished private property. While the case concerned real property, it was written so that it included anything a person could own including patent rights. In Kelo, whenever any government (even a place like Wasilla, Alaska) decides that someone else can make better use of your property, the government can take that property and give it to another person. Because so many people react emotionally without thinking about the consequences that may flow from their selfish demands that their religious dogma be the law of the land, they do not realize that repeal of Roe v Wade would be the sister to Kelo? If Roe is overturned, then the government would decide what you can do with your body, and in Kelo, it has already decided that it determines what you can do with your property.

This discustion is strictly on opionion not on facts. Gov. Palin has always been a states rights person. That being said Abortion is not in any way covered in the US Constitution therefor it is a states issue. When we put judges in the Supream Court that go by the strictest interpritation of the US Constitution we will continue to elect who are looking for ways to get more power for the federal gov and take it away from the states. We should always remember absolute power promotes absolute intolerance do we remember Germany or the USSR.

Very few people who opine on Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), have read the decision. The Court has to decide cases based upon constitutional principles. As Justice Blackmun pointed out, quoting a prior Supreme Court case, “The Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views …” Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905) Thus, the Court knew that the case involved emotionally charged views. The Court should not, however, lower itself to the emotionalism nor may it adopt one person’s religion voer another’s religion.
The legal question of regulating abortion grows from the Declaration of Independence which identifies three unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Of these three unalienable rights, only Liberty is explicitly mentioned in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the legal document which separated us from Great Britain, but the Constitution is the document which establishes our nation. When the Constitution states that its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty,” our legal system has to place a premium on Liberty.
Why does the Constitution expressly refer to Liberty and not to Life? The short answer is that the Constitution was establishing a Republic and the cornerstone of a Republic is individual liberty. I assume that Life is not mentioned as everyone knew that protecting the lives of the citizens was one of the objectives, as well as protecting property rights, and personal privacy. The Bill of Rights had to be added before the colonies would ratify the constitution. That’s how important individual liberty was to the funding fathers and to the general public. The first amendment protected the privacy right of the individual to freedom of religion, the privacy right to associate with other people, the right to think and say one’s mind. The second amendment protected the privacy right to keep and bear arms. The 4th amendment protects people ‘in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
While Roe v Wade said that privacy was at the penumbra of the Constitution, the right to privacy is at the Constitution’s core and in inseparable from Liberty. If you remove a zone of privacy, you allow the government to dominate each person’s life. Without privacy, our nation would be like Red China 20 years ago. Without privacy, there is no liberty.
Roe v Wade mediated between two competing unalienable rights: Liberty v. Life. Does the Constitution have a prohibition on taking a life? No, it does not. In fact, the Constitution says that both life and liberty may be taken in accordance with “due process of law.” Thus, from a Constitutional viewpoint, both the right to liberty and the right to life are on equal footing.
The court devises a reasonable balance between the competing right of the mother to her individual Liberty over her person and the unborn fetus’ right to Life. For the first trimester, the decision to abort rests with the mother and her physician. During the second trimester, the State may regulate abortion in ways reasonable related to the maternal health, and during the last trimester(viability), the state may prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to preserve the month’s life or health.
There are some who want to replace Constitution law with their own religious dogma. Because their religion holds that Life begins at conception, they believe that all abortion should be forbidden. These people want to impose their religious dogma on to other religions who believe that life does not begin at conception and others who believe that even if life begins at conception, the mother has the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Whose religion should the law adopt? No one’s. No religion should be so arrogant to believe that only its dogma is correct.
Roe v Wade does not infringe on anyone’s right not to have an abortion. The decision is not coercive. It does not impose any religious dogma upon any person. Those who want to repeal Roe v Wade always want to force other people to live their lives according to another religion’s dogma.
The opponents to Roe v Wade overlook a basic fact. The issue in Roe v Wade is who decides whether there is an abortion? The State or the individual? If Roe v Wade is over turned, the State decides who can have an abortion. In 20 years, the government could become like China and limit families and mandate abortions for any woman who has one living child. People who had two children could become criminals. It would be extreme folly for Americans to turn over to the government the power to force a woman must have an abortion against her wishes. Roe not only allows a mother to have an abortion; it also protects the mother from being forced to have an abortion. Freedom of Choice means that the government does not make private decisions.
If there is no right to privacy (Liberty) in the area of abortion, then the government could decide that Downs Syndrome children are too expensive and require pre-natal testing and their abortion without regard to the mother’s desire to deliver and care for the baby.
The dogmatic religiosity of the far right attacks the unalienable right to Liberty which is the core of our social compact that ties us together as one nation indivisible. If the Court overturns Roe and declares the right to privacy to be null and void, then all other privacy rights are in danger. In Kelo v City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Supreme court in effect abolished private property. While the case concerned real property, it was written so that it included anything a person could own including patent rights. In Kelo, whenever any government (even a place like Wasilla, Alaska) decides that someone else can make better use of your property, the government can take that property and give it to another person. Because so many people react emotionally without thinking about the consequences that may flow from their selfish demands that their religious dogma be the law of the land, they do not realize that repeal of Roe v Wade would be the sister to Kelo? If Roe is overturned, then the government would decide what you can do with your body, and in Kelo, it has already decided that it determines what you can do with your property.

If you truly beleive life begins at conception you must oppose abortion because the choice belongs,also to the fetus. I have never seen a “Jewish ” poaition clearly stated as to this based on solid talmudic proof please help

Here we go again and again and again…
Abortion is a tough choice, but should be an available choice, nonetheless.
I know at least two people who have had abortions, feeling it was better for both mother/parents/child, for whatever the reason – and it’s not for us to judge.
It’s a shame for those who carry guilt and shame, and you should understand that you made the best decision for you at that time.
Shame on those who would place the label of “murderer” on any woman who chooses abortion. Shame, shame, shame. Most women do not have abortions out of simple convenience, and oh, BTW, for me, sex is about way more than simple physical pleasure, though of course, it’s pleasurable. It’s supposed to be!. It’s a gift from G-d to help me bond emotionally with my husband.
Further, the article only talks to one Planned Parenthood provider. Most other do indeed offer all sorts of counseling and services, including abortion among the choices. PP also provided birth control. Think how much better life could be if more people knew all about and used birth control.
Don’t be so black and white about your vehemence to decry those who choose to terminate their pregnancies. For most people, it’s a desperate, sad, but for them, necessary choice, and despite your polar opposition to it, sometimes the most compassionate one.

The irony is that the pro-abortion forces are helping the anti-abortion forces by the former having so many fewer children as a result of all their abortions.

BTW – my previous post comes from a “middle-aged” Jew on the east coast…
S.H. Ziegler, Rabbi Brad may correct me, but I suspect there are as many Jewish opinions on abortion as there are Jews. You know the old joke – “two Jews, three opinions”.
While that is an exaggeration for the sake of humor, I would not be surprised to find many differing Jewish opinions.
I like to re-tell the story of an Orthodox Jewish woman I saw on some TV news special several years ago. She had used fertility drugs to conceive, and became pregnant with four embryos. After discussions with her husband and doctor, she chose what was called “selective reduction”, a process by which the fetuses that appeared weakest/smallest/least likely to survive were aborted, leaving the two remaining ones (in her case, she went from 4 to 2), to greatly increase the chance they would be born alive and healthy, as well as to improve the mother’s health. She said quite clearly, “I don’t see it as murdering two of my children. I see it as saving two of my children.”
This is an example of the type of perspective that makes me so avid a supporter of a woman’s right to choose.

I have a real problem because the issue is made black and white(not racial) I want only a tingue of gray permiting a known factor to a mother(having at least one child) and her danger if she has a birth. I belive a C section(operation of child birth) can take care of this ,but it does put some danger to both mother and child.The mother she already is.The child can be still born anyway. Why endanger a mother?
Bob Sr.

I have a real problem because the issue is made black and white(not racial) I want only a tingue of gray permiting a known factor to a mother(having at least one child) and her danger if she has a birth. I belive a C section(operation of child birth) can take care of this ,but it does put some danger to both mother and child.The mother she already is.The child can be still born anyway. Why endanger a mother?
Bob Sr.

The irony is that the pro-abortion forces are helping the anti-abortion forces by the former having so many fewer children as a result of all their abortions.
Ludicrous, ludicrous stetement.
There’s no such thing as someone who is “pro-abortion”. The person is pro-choice, and you know it.
People who are pro-choice don’t “help” anti-choice “forces” by having “fewer children”.
They help woman by allowing women to choose when to have and when not to have children if an unintended pregnancy occurs. They also help women get access to education and birth control, thereby making abortions ultimately less necessary.

you want to know what i think? i think abortion is murdering those little inocent unborn babys,they;re gods little angels,some would be preachers,some doctors and nurses,teachers,but because of abortion
they cant,do you thank this is fair,we can go on with our life and be what ever we want to be,but because of the sin off abortion little babys dont have those rights.
rebecca

And-
There are many reasons for abortion beside an unintended pregnancy.
Maybe a couple wanted to become pregnant, but something went terribly wrong during the fetus’s or embryo’s development.
Many a mother who wanted to have a child made what they thought was the kinder choice to end the pregnancy early.
People need to let go of their tunnel vision.

I really think it is wrong for anyone to attempt to legislate morality. This should not even be a political issue. I believe a woman should have a right to choose, and that people should stay out of that decision PERIOD.
If you have a problem with abortions, then don’t have one. Its just that simple

Who is going to force a woman to carry a Tay Sacks fetus to term so that she can watch it shrivel and die in 2-3 years? How about a hydrocephalic fetus, which has nothing but a brain stem – a living vegetable that will last maybe a year? Who is going to force a family to endure that tragedy?

When John Kennedy ran for President, he stated that he would keep his religion away from his public duties.
With the likes of Bush, McCain and Palin, the exact opposite attitude prevails. They see it as their duty to impose their religious dogma on all Americans.
Since 1776, when we spoke about G-d, The Creator, Divine Province in public life, we were referring to a vague type of prime mover, essence of the universe. It was a generic reference so that everyone could feel included. It’s so philosophically vague that it could include “The Big Bang.” The founding fathers, many of who were not Christian, were not referring to some specific god that had impregnated a virgin and then later killed his own son. There is no room for the ring wing’s obnoxious religious dogma in public life.
As long as the right wing insists that its dogma become the law of the land, it may not complain when other citizens point out the silly, ignorant, and bigoted nature of its dogmas. Abortion is not the only area where they demand that other Americans give up their religious rights. The far right wants to supplant Creationism for science, and its anti-Gay bigotry still hampers our military preparedness by excluding millions of citizens from service in the Armed Forces.

I am Pro-Choice, Jewish, and politically Conservative. I do believe that late term abortions are murder.
This is not about Sarah Palin.
On changing Roe v Wade, remember how the process works….
The President simply nominates prospective Judges. The appointment occurs in the US Senate by an up or down vote. The Dems control Congress, and last time I looked, Sen Charles Schumer (D-NY) heads up this committee.
Throughout the Bush Administration, there has been no attempt to overturn Roe v Wade. As the population is equally divided on this issue, I suspect that this law will remain as it is.

Here’s the way I see it.
Abortion is a tough choice. Sometimes it may even be the wrong choice. But it should be a choice.
There are powerful religious and moral arguments that hold abortion to be completely immoral, sinful, and wrong, and I respect those who honestly follow those precepts. There are also powerful arguments that an unwanted pregnancy can happen to anyone and that there is no longer any reason why a woman should suffer either the pain of giving up a life that had been inside her for none months or be forced to change the rest of her life because of a child she never wanted. Choice is painful, but it is up to the conscience of every woman and every doctor. If you believe it is wrong, don’t do it. IT MAY BE A SIN, BUT SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME.
THEREFORE, THE BEST ANSWER IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO LAW REGULATING ABORTION, AT LEAST DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER. THIS IS THE MOST PERSONAL AND IMPORTANT DECISION A WOMAN MUST MAKE. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT.
BTW, I don’t understand the JEWISH POSITION. Orthodox Jews do not permit abortion, but my Reform Rabbi told me that Reform Judaism permits it until the head has crowned at birth. These sould like completely opposite ends of the pole to me. What does Judaism teach us when we are in need of guidance and must make a decision?
Lucy

Life is always about choice…this is a Universal truth. Therefore,we must first be given the opportunity to respect each and everyone’s choice….just as we choose our religions and how we live. BTW, your article is about the TRUTH. Thank you for your beautiful and intelligent guidance.
Mimi

First, for Dave, most of us who are pro-choice have never had an abortion. We don’t look upon abortion as something good, an alternative method of birth control. Unfortunately, life is messy and often sad, and sometimes, a woman feels this is the only alternative for her. Do not tell me a rape victim should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy to term. What about a woman who finds out she is pregnant by the man who has been abusing her? What if the fetus is badly damaged and would be born only to die a short time later? Do you honestly feel a six-week-old embryo should take precedence over a woman? I do not.
I believe, unquestionably, that children should be taught the virtues of self-respect, respect for others, delayed gratification and modesty. These are just some of the values that young people must posess if they are to remain abstinent in a culture that often glorifies hedonistic behavior. I also believe that teenagers need to be informed. They need to know about birth control and how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases. After all, at some point most people will need this information as even most married couples want to control their fertility.
I have never had an abortion and would not encourage a woman to do so unless it was what she wanted. I do however, believe it must remain legal. If it is not, wealthier women will be able to obtain safe, medical abortions for a price, while desperate, poor woman will die trying to end unwanted pregnancies, and more newborns will end up in dumpsters. Forbidding abortions will not make “families” it will create misery.
Lucy G.

I’m 68 years old. At the age of 17 I got pregnant. I then developed a case of the German Measles during the critical time between the 7th and 9th weeks. That was 1958. But I had an abortion, because my doctor explained all the negative things that could happen to the baby,
and being I was so young I could have more children. I married the
man anyway. The marriage did not last, but I had 2 daughters during the
time we were together.
I always thanked God for the 2 healthy children and never felt guilty about the abortion I had.
Most important is that I have never approved of men making decisions for me and my body. No one should be in charge of my body but me; especially not the government. Pro-choice is it. Every individual should have the right to choose without interference from anyone.

Do these same people who think abortion should be allowed to be legal also believe in capital punishment? Can we as a country of educated and intelligent humans put our heads together and come to some conclusion besides abortion or not abortion? How about a place where the mother can deliver her baby and place it for adoption. And baren couples can go there to adopt these babies. Why does one group have to loose so another group can win?

I am pro choice, but I would like to see the rate significantly reduced. The problem as i see it is that a large segment of the religious community seemsto regard abortion and birth control as equally offensive-only abstinence can be taught in sex ed classes, the morning after pill should not be available, etc. I think these attitudes simply prevent us from coming up with ways that work to reduce unwanted pregnancy. Because for some it is THE BIG POLITICAL ISSUE, there is no incentiv eon the right to look at possibilities. I’m not sure they even believe theirown rhetoric as there does not seem to be a push to label women who have had abortions as murderers or punish them as such in the case of non lawful abortions

Actually it was the abortionists who were prosecuted before legalized abortion, which is the way it would return. Abortionists are more than willing to ease the conscience of women inquiring about abortions by saying it’s just a blob of tissue and being considerably less than honest or forthcoming with the pregnant mothers. That coupled with the pressures of unwanted pregnancy and shaken mental capacity incurred by such pressures may be reasons why mothers themselves were not prosecuted as murderesses.

“Abortionists”? Oh, please. What garbage.
And capital punishment? Stick to the issues, please.
Women who have had abortions are not prosectued as “murderesses” becausae abortion is not murder. And, oh, BTW, it’s legal.
Using emotional statements and polarizing words only show an inability to have a rational discussion. We’re not buyin’…

I must start by saying that I was a victim of abortion. Why? Because I found out first hand that this thing called “Pro-Choice” is non-existent.
Today, at 65 yrs old… I look back over my life and find I would have made different choices… had I been *given* a choice!
I was very young. and very proud of the fact that I belonged to the bra-burning, radical feminists of the ’60′s. “Nobody had the right to tell ME what I could do with my body!”. Sadly, those were the days when I was the arrogant “Prodigal”, racing down the road of self-destruction.
It wasn’t long before I found myself pregnant. I told my ob-gyn that I didn’t want this baby.
She said “OK. Go see this psychiatrist. When she asks you if you have contemplated suicide, just say yes”.
(by the way… I was 6 or 7 months along)
I went to the shrink, and the appt. lasted all of 30 seconds. She asked if I had thought of suicide, I said I had.
I went back to my ob-gyn, she performed the abortion, with one condition – that I agree to be sterilized at the same time. End of story?
NO. If anyone has ever gone thru a late-term abortion, they know what I’m talking about. All these decades later, I’m still haunted by the memory of feeling my baby fight for it’s life while being deliberately murdered.
also, I got my act together in my late 20′s, became a “solid citizen”, married and desperately wanted a child with my husband. It wasn’t to be. (in spite of corrective surgery to reverse the tubal ligation.)
I want to say… I am still Pro-Choice. I just wish there WAS such a thing as Pro-Choice!
Abortion mills do NOT offer any choice! They PUSH abortion. Period!
It’s their bread-and-butter. NO CHOICE.
Then we have the opposite extreme… who would out-law ANY abortion. Also wrong in my opinion.
(Judith, I’m glad you were offered the choice. and I would defend your right to choose! Seems you had a good reason.)
In regards to Palin’s stance on abortion, I was un-easy when I heard that she was against ANY abortion. (another extreme right-winger?)
No, it doesn’t appear to be so. At the same time that she is against abortion, personally… she doesn’t believe in pushing her own beliefs on anyone else.
She hasn’t done it in Alaska, (an overwhelmingly Democratic, pro-choice state) and I don’t think she would push her own stance, nationally.
There are a few more points to abortion that have been squelched in the liberal media.
The majority of abortions are sought by college educated women. NOT “welfare mothers” who continue to breed un-abated. (bigger monthly checks.)
It shouldn’t be to difficult to see that we’re ridding the next generation of “higher IQ” genes. Part of the dumbing down of America?
Secondly… China, where abortion has been state ordered to comply with their “one family – one child” policy… has found that the majority of abortions are gender-motivated. The Chinese couples want a SON not daughter. Now… 20 yrs later, they’ve found that their sons are at marriageable age… and there are not enough young Chinese women to marry!!!
The government’s fear now is that their ethnicity is becoming watered down, as these young men are going outside China to find non-Chinese wives.
This whole issue is much more complicated than “choice or no choice”.
By the way… the liberal media neglects to tell you of all the botched -Legal- abortions done in the abortion mills, and women dying from them, every day!
Just one more point… when I was a kid… a girl’s biggest defense against a teenage boy’s advances was “No way! What if I get pregnant!?”
With abortion-on-deman and readily available birth control, we have taken away that first line of defense from our girls.
Sad… because – as much as comptemporary society says it’s ok… some things never change. and one of those un-changeables is that men, given a choice would still prefer a “brand-new vehicle” to a “used car”. Or as my generation used to say “Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free”.
Quaint? I suppose so. But it still applies.

The problem on this blog is that, even though it’s written by a rabbi, you get a lot of non-Jewish participation. Which means many of the opinions voiced are just not…Jewish.

If Palin and McCain and other members of the religious right really wanted to get rid of abortion they would put more money into and promote public education, job programs, comprehensive health education including sex education, univeral health coverage, availability of contraception, and other programs that decrease and eliminate the need for abortion. When they do that I will take their stance seriously. Until then they are simply trying to impose their religion on me.

I am always surprised that the republicans who are so outraged by abortion are some of the same people who lobby for guns to go out and shoot defenseless animals (and hunting buddies).
Until there is a universal understanding that all life is sacred this debate will rage on.
FACT: Sarah Palin not only promotes the aerial killing of wolves and other wildlife (in winter, when there is no refuge from low flying planes and high powered rifles) but she put forth a proposal to award $150.00 for the severed foreleg of the slaughtered animals.
FACT: This is part of a $400,000 state-funded propaganda campaign.
She is an awful person with so many awful policies but she is at the very least a hypocrite on the sanctity of life.
Verify facts at defenders of wildlife site http://defendersactionfund.org/

I agree with Joy. Teaching abstinence to a society where sex is promoted everywhere is impossible. Maybe, they should get rid all of the sex ads that is promoted on televison.

It has never been an easy task to decide what is right about abortion. I know that before the law was passed there were illegal horrific things done to these women in order to “rid themselves” of a bad mistake. There has to be a consequence to every action that is contrary to nature. Some of these medical conditions show up in later attempts at a truly “wanted” pregnancy by complications and miscarriages. A woman should always make decisions based on all the facts. It is a spiritual problem even if people decide it is not. We are part of the bigger picture. Nothing is done without a price. Surgery is a correction, but it also invades us, changes us from our beginnings. Each person has a choice, but I have to admit some are not always sound. An abortion should be in favor to save a life either the mother or baby. Only on an individual basis, not as a form of birth control. Think before acting. Thanks, I know this is not an easy lesson. I felt a spiritual being when I was pregnant several years ago with our sons. I do feel I was lucky to have children. Nancy R.

> Whatever happened to our Constitutional Separation of Church & State? > Remember NOT to vote Republican!

I too feel that ROE v. WADE should be overturned; as well I feel that there should be personal choice each and every person. I don’t want to be responsible for any other person’s very personal decision to either take or save a life. That being said, I also do not think that any government, church or being has the right to tell anyone what to do. The dilema is great. I think it may just be the right time to let individual states decide their own options, remove the Federal Government from the plan, and empower each person to be responsible for their own decisions, right or wrong. Nancy, I too feel very lucky to have my own two children. However, several years ago, when faced with the possibility of being pregnant, unmarried and well over the age of 50, I did consider aborting the pregnancy. Thankfully, nature (and possibly many, many prayers) made that decision for me.
And as far as NOT voting Republican, not once last night during the first debate did I hear Sen. Obama state that Isreal must be protected at all costs. How can you even consider voting for anyone who will not first and foremost declare that without protection for Isreal in the Middle East, all is lost there, Carlos?

Please humans wake up! The world and United States is in big trouble. First, we must think with logic instead of the Church. Government and Church must be seperated! The world is over populated and the world doesn
‘t have enough resources. I don’t want the government or anyone in my personal life making decision about my sex life and my personal choice about having children or not too. If I am raped and don’t want the child, nobody should be telling me what to do! Or force a women to give life and bring unwanted child into the world! People are dieing, starving in most third world countries. Is this what you want AMerica to come! Well, I guess we are already heading that way! Keep your laws and your own personal beliefs to yourself and your own life! Don’t push or force your beliefs on others! We must be logical! We can’t populate every square inch with humans! Poor, hungry, no place to live! All the church people want to push there views on others, but do they want to support all these unwanted children?????
To make life, it’s called SEX!!! It is not a mircale! IT’S A SEX ACT! AND WHEN HUMANS HAVE NO COMMON SENSE TO PROTECT AGAINST PREGANCY, IT SHOWS HOW UNLOGICAL THEY ARE. THe govenment should have more important issues to work on like; saving the middle class, so kids have a home to live in and food to eat! Jobs and manufactoring here in AMerica instead of being shipped out! It’s time for logic, or all these poor unwanted children already living in uncertain times, should be taught common sense, protect themselves against getting pregant…not promoting “sure have babies” THe more poor the people of a country, the more the rich and government control us….it’s there way of keeping the poor and stupied where they are having nothing.

Scott R.
Far from a problem, one of the great successs of this blog is that all are welcome and many find a place here, regardless of the faith they follow. That’s why I call the blog Windows & Doors, not Barriers and Bunkers.
And please spare us all the stuff about opinions that are “not Jewish”. What makes an opinion “Jewish”? That it reflects Jewish Wisdom? That it concerns itself with issues that only matter to Jews? That it is offered by a Jew? And who decides what that is? Need they be Jewish according to Halkha, and if so, who decides what that is.
I love that you are with us Scott. I suggest that you worry less about who is part of this conversation and more about how to grow that conversation by adding the voices and opinions that you think are missing. And I insist that you not make comments designed to make others any less welcome than you are here at Windows & Doors.
Wishing you a happy, healthy New Year!

Rabbi,
The fact that this blog is written by a rabbi gives the impression that this is a Jewish blog. Anyone who goes on to Crunchy Con or Reformed Chicks knows first and foremost that those are Xian blogs. That’s just the way is – because they were established as Xian blogs.
No matter what you do and no matter what you say, people will think of this as a Jewish blog. If people voice Xian theology, I think it’s very important to point out that these opinions are not in tune with Jewish theology.
Our views on abortion are much more nuanced than those of conservative Xians.
I’m glad that you say everyone is welcome here. However, I feel that I am not.
I wish you a Shana Tova and a Chag Sameach, but you won’t be seeing me again in the New Year.

Speaking for myself, abortion was a one time solution to a problem I didn’t fully understand. I was raped at 13, and literally had NO ONE I could talk to. My teacher told me I was lying, and I knew my mom wouldn’t handle it well. It makes me sad to think I’d have a 12 year old, but I couldn’t have kept it, and I couldn’t live knowing I had a child out there somewhere. Millions of women have been in my place. They understand. It’s not a form of birth control, though.

Scott R.
This IS a Jewish blog and I never said otherwise. And it’s a shame to see you go. But if you are looking for a rah-rah chorus which always confirms and affirms what you already believe, then you are probably correct about this not being the place for you.
I believe however, that deep down, you, like the Jewish position on abortion, are more nuanced than that. And so, I hope that you will stick around. Your presence is valued here and so is your voice. You may want to reconsider why you don’t feel that. It can not be good for you, or anyone else, to limit the places they go to those that merely mirror the status quo. Where’s the fun in that? And more importantly, where is the growth?
Alas, I am not sure how many people associte being Jewish with growing, but that’s for another time….

Rabbi Brad:
Thank you so much for your refreshing insight and balance when you bring these issues to the table.
Doreen:
I agree with many of your points but please don’t be so quick to judge “All the church people…” Since you don’t know all the church people and haven’t talked to all the church people, you really don’t know what all the church people want to do. I, for one, do not want to push my views on others, nor do a whole lot of other people and many do support a great deal of these unwanted or unplanned children.
I think that we all could use some balance when we make reference to any issue and realize that there are people on both sides of the fence. I don’t believe that abortion is the best way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t believe that the government should force women who have been raped to carry a baby that continues her traumatization. I do believe that many Americans have become very irresponsible and self-centered which has opened the door to many of our ills. Because we will not judge ourselves, we find ourselves being judged by others.
I think we can make our point without anger as the Bible states, “Come now,let us reason together…” If we refuse to reason with each other to come to a place of agreement, we will find ourselves cutoff from the very help that we need to live balanced and peaceful lives in this world.

sure abortion may be wrong, but youve got to take into consideration that there are many people who for one reason or other did not want any kids and guess what they got pregnant by accident. now what either adoption or abortion i pick the later, also unfortunately i see it all the time ,,you have some parents act like theyre not humans theyre animals once its born they fend for themselves against enemies and food and that is wrong it would of been better if they didnt have kids at all thats why kids commit crimes etc no proper upbringing. you may feel im wrong thats okay but you have kids you have responsibility to care for and teach them right from wrong no buts and there are some who dodges responsibility in raising kids.why is this happen lazy no just dont care no no responsibility yes.we need to teach young adults they are responsible for their actions including having a family which is sadly lacking in todays society.unfortunately im sorry to say im part of it.but im proud to be a godly man and unashamed to say so.also people should have a choice but its not always right in gods eyes.

I don’t fully understand your position on the choice/power dynamic regarding the person from planned parenthood. I work in an industry defending a woman’s rights across a wide spectrum including abortion. I have worked with a number of planned parenthood representatives who have not given me that impression. You are right that they have never advocated or stressed the position that a woman keep the child; but they have never advocated for the abortion either.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the empowerment model, which exists precisely to inform to the utmost degree and strengthen the personal understanding of the choice at hand. No respectable person in this position would ever advise a woman to have or not to have an abortion and such behavior is grounds for termination. It destroys everything the organization stands for – THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
Never-mind the practicality argument; there are more reasons for a woman’s legal right to have this procedure done in a safe and supervised manner than there are stars in the sky – and yet many moderate and understanding people oppose this issue with vicious religious fervor. The most beautiful part is that nearly anyone could potentially be swayed one way or the other under the appropriate circumstances. We must be careful when holding on to our personal beliefs because we may find one day that we are destroying one life to save another.