Progressive Advocates Assert Religious Justification for Abortion



Some progressives are arguing for‌ a religious right to abortion

The Book⁢ of Exodus contains​ a section about liability. It is a bit outdated,⁢ enumerating ‍damages if someone’s ⁤bull gores another person’s slave. But ‍one parable is relevant to abortion debates today, since ​it ⁣elucidates how Judaism understands the⁢ unborn. If a pregnant woman is hit ⁣and suffers a miscarriage, the perpetrator must pay ‌a fine. If she dies, however, the penalty is death. The tale is said to differentiate between⁢ the value of a​ fetus and a person. Other Jewish texts also ‌hold that life doesn’t⁢ begin at⁤ conception.

The justification for outlawing ​abortion ‌is to protect fetal life; some‌ states’ ‌bans say this explicitly. Yet⁤ that rationale rests on a religious belief about when life‌ begins. What about people whose faith ⁤maintains that⁣ it‌ starts later?‍ Indeed Jewish law authorises, and even requires, an abortion if a mother’s health—physical or mental—is jeopardised. Jews disagree about what⁤ degree of risk warrants the procedure. But the general principle ​is that her well-being ‍takes ⁢priority.

In Indiana and Kentucky, several Jewish women are seeking religious exemptions ⁢from their states’ abortion ‍bans in ‍court. The restrictions, they say, make it impossible to get an abortion when their faith might ‍mandate one. The lawsuit ⁤in Indiana‍ is joined by a Muslim and⁢ a woman who describes⁤ herself as a non-theistic believer in the sanctity of bodily autonomy. It is the further ​along of the two cases: on December 6th ⁤the Indiana Court⁢ of Appeals, which sits one rung below the state’s highest court, will take it up. Similar challenges have been brought by religious leaders in Florida and Missouri.

2023-11-16 09:48:08
Link from www.economist.com
rnrn

Exit mobile version