Hebrew. The judaeo-Christian religion is a significant reason why the west has been a boon to humanity. Now we’re at this moment...as an anti abortion absolutist, I’d be very interested to see the textual basis for the ‘Hebrew rule’. There’s lots in the OT about manslaughter vs murder, but I do not know how they would come up with that parameter from the OT.
Not all Hebraic law was based on scriptures. Much was based on tradition. (But there is a ritual abortion in the OT performed by a priest when a woman is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband, which is I think why abortion is legal in Israel today.) So I think there was precedent for the idea of "quickening" being the beginning of "life" at that point. And there certainly was a system whereby legal personhood was determined--that is, the woman already alive was considered to be a legal person, but the unborn child was not, but upon birth became a "person" with rights equivalent to the mother. So, for example, if the pregnancy was killing the mother, her right to live superseded the child's right to live up until birth. The mother could waive that right if she wanted the child to live more than she wanted to live herself, but the decision was hers.
Aristotle not looking great here IMO....”The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states. Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females”
I wonder what texts this decision is based on?
Here's Alito's draft:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000
Or are you talking Hebrew texts? That would be interesting...
Hebrew. The judaeo-Christian religion is a significant reason why the west has been a boon to humanity. Now we’re at this moment...as an anti abortion absolutist, I’d be very interested to see the textual basis for the ‘Hebrew rule’. There’s lots in the OT about manslaughter vs murder, but I do not know how they would come up with that parameter from the OT.
Perhaps the Midrash or Talmud? Wish we had a rabbinical scholar among us!
Not all Hebraic law was based on scriptures. Much was based on tradition. (But there is a ritual abortion in the OT performed by a priest when a woman is suspected of being unfaithful to her husband, which is I think why abortion is legal in Israel today.) So I think there was precedent for the idea of "quickening" being the beginning of "life" at that point. And there certainly was a system whereby legal personhood was determined--that is, the woman already alive was considered to be a legal person, but the unborn child was not, but upon birth became a "person" with rights equivalent to the mother. So, for example, if the pregnancy was killing the mother, her right to live superseded the child's right to live up until birth. The mother could waive that right if she wanted the child to live more than she wanted to live herself, but the decision was hers.
Fascinating subject! Here's some additional commentary with references:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/quickening
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abortion
Aristotle not looking great here IMO....”The point of quickening, as described by Aristotle, was the moment at which the life in the womb became human, as opposed to its previous vegetable and animal states. Aristotle believed that quickening took place at forty days for males and eighty days for females”
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/quickening
Aristotle and other ancient thinkers probably noticed that most animal fetuses were astonishingly similar early in development
That cracked me up! I guess the ancients, like some current cultures, consider male children more valuable/superior than female children ~ 🙀.