Tuesday, April 20, 2021

Abortion - the lenient view

Tzitz Eliezer (13:102) Abortion because of Tay Sachs In all cases the child will die before the age of four after progressive physical and mental deterioration and there is no known treatment. There are tests that clearly establish whether the embryo has Tay Sachs.  There is a well-known leniency of Rav Yaakov Emden who allows abortion within the first three months even in cases which are not life threatening to the mother It is permitted in the case of the serious condition of Tay Sachs to abort until seven months. A Jew does not get capital punishment for killing an embryo. In addition many poskim view abortion as only a rabbinic prohibition or merely a restriction for the good of society but not murder and therefore the Maharit (9:97-99) permits a Jew to do abortion when it serves the needs of the mothers health even if not life saving. In addition there is the leniency of Rav Yaakov Emden (1:43)  who allows abortion in cases of great need even when it is not life saving but saves the mother from great suffering. . Therefore if there is a need because of great pain or suffering as exists in our case of Tay Sachs (and it doesn’t make a difference if the child is taken away and institutionalized until he dies.)  It would appear  that if there was a leniency to permit abortion in halacha  because of great need  of suffering this would be a classic case.. If possible the abortion should be done by a female doctor since according to the view that abortion is prohibited because of wasting seed and that prohibition doesn’t apply to women according to most poskim.

Tzitz Eliezar (14:100) Abortion leniency in cases of great need – in particular for Tay Sachs.  Concerning the analysis of abortion done bythe gaon Rav Moshe Feinstein shlita., I reviewed it two or three times, and even though there is much to comment and criticize nevertheless I have decided for practical reasons not to do so and will only briefly comment on fundamental points and not with a lot of noise but in a quiet calm manner and let the reader decide between us.   Regarding Tosfos (Niddah 44)  which states that abortion is permitted, he takes the simplest path and declares that it is an error in the text and that it should say patur (exempt) rather than permitted. He is not bothered by Tosfos makes the statement twice that abortion is permitted and simply states that Tosfos really views abortion as prohibited because it is permitted to profane Shabbos to save its life.  With all due respect Sir this is not acceptable. We are dependent on the previous generations and they struggled each one in his own way to try and establish what the intent of Tosfos (Niddah) was and how to reconcile the words. Not a single authority concluded like this easy way to declare that there was an error in the text. .  I am totally amazed how he could ignore all the sources from previous generations including some close to the period of Rishonim that clearly disagree with him and furthermore don’t view abortion as murder. .

No comments :

Post a Comment

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.