Those yids most not have read Torah. Stupid Kazarians....
Judaism isn't based on the torah aka "written law" but the talmud aka "oral law", which is a compilation of interpretations of the torah by rabbis
It hasn't always been that way, it's that way since sadducees disappeared https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abortion-in-jewish-thought/
Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.
At the same time, feticide is prohibited by Jewish law, though there is disagreement over the exact source of this prohibition and how serious an infraction it is. Some consider it biblical in origin based on a verse (Genesis 9.6) that prohibits shedding the “blood of man within man” — a phrase understood to refer to a fetus. Moreover, Judaism teaches that the body is ultimately the property of God and is merely on loan to human beings. Multiple prohibitions in Jewish law— including prohibitions on suicide, getting tattoos and wounding oneself— collectively serve to reject the idea that individuals enjoy an unfettered right to make choices regarding their own bodies.
As a public policy matter, many of the major American Jewish organizations have been vocal in support of broadening or protecting abortion access. Orthodox organizations, however, do not support broad legal protections for abortion. A 2019 New York law liberalizing the state’s abortion laws was opposed by both the Rabbinical Council of America and Agudath Israel of America, two major Orthodox groups, though both groups have been explicit that laws banning abortions in late pregnancy when a mother’s life is at risk run afoul of Jewish teachings.
Does Jewish law ever explicitly permit abortions? Yes, but only under very limited circumstances. The most common situation, explicitly described in the Mishnah , is where the mother’s life is imperiled by her pregnancy. Some consider such an abortion not merely permissible, but mandatory. However, once the baby’s head has emerged from the mother (some authorities say the majority of its body, some say merely any limb), termination is no longer allowed, since Jewish law does not permit sacrificing one life to save another.
Short of clear threats to a mother’s life, the permissibility of abortion is controversial in Jewish texts. There are Orthodox rabbinic sources that support abortion when a mother’s health is in danger even if her life is not at risk; when a fetus is conclusively determined to suffer from severe abnormalities; when a mother’s mental health is in danger; or when the pregnancy is the result of a forbidden sexual union. However, these rulings are not universally accepted, and many Orthodox rabbis are cautious about laying down firm standards, insisting instead that cases be judged individually.
The Conservative movement is somewhat more lenient in all these cases, explicitly understanding threats to a mother’s life as extending to psychological threats to her mental well-being. In 1983, the Conservative movement’s rabbinical authorities permitted abortion only “if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective.”
The Reform movement has historically taken a similar approach. In 1958, the movement’s rabbinate determined that abortion is permitted for sake of the mother’s mental well-being if there is “strong preponderance of medical opinion that the child will be born imperfect physically, and even mentally.” In 1985, the psychological justification was explicitly extended to cases of rape and incest, while emphasizing opposition to abortion for “trivial reasons” or “on demand.” In published responsa, the movement has rejected abortion in cases where the birth might pose hardships for other family members. At the same time, both the Reform and Conservative rabbinates have been vocal in support of keeping abortion legal and accessible.
Is abortion discussed in ancient sources? The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.
The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth.
That is one hell of an effort post. Bravo and thanks.
More seriously, you gave me a lot to think about with respect to the talmud and added specificity to the subject.
The Jews had multiple sects, just like Christians do and they all have different interpretations of their scripture, just like Christians do.
For example of another jewish sect at the time of sadducees:
John the Baptist was a Essenes preacher who formed his own messianic sect and circumcised Jesus according to the jewish tradition and declaring him as King of all Jews
There's no biblical or historical element directly proving that john was an essene. Maybe he was one of them at some point, that's not something I would rule out entirely. But there's no element suggesting he circumcised jesus, at least as far as I'm aware of.
(post is archived)