What does halachah (Jewish law) say about abortion? How have these laws impacted the State of Israel?
404834
Abortion is totally against halacha. The only exception is if it would be a threat to mother's life but even this is not a straight and simple answer.  It's a very complex issue, involving many factors.
540381
Jewish people do discuss their opinion on the immigration issue.  I don't live in the United States at the moment so I'm a bit out of the loop on this issue, but I tend to be very compassionate towards illegal immigrants.  I think it's important to remember that we were all created in the image of G-d, that all people are entitled to live with dignity, and that we should try to think of what is moral and what is just, and then make that into a legal reality.  Sometimes laws are not just.  One of the central ideas in Judaism is that it's our duty to create a more just world.
970603
The laws you are quoting are from Levitical law.  We wouldn't understand them in our 21st century culture, but they were necessary is keeping the society that was present more than three millennia ago in check, as all laws do.  If you could see what was permissable in societies surrounding the Israelites, you'd probably be horrified; infant sacrifice, for instance.  \n\nThe New Testament, being composed 1200-1400 years later, takes a different view of the law; as society has changed, it needed more than laws to keep it in check, but someone to embody and fulfil the law; hence Jesus.  Even with that, though, sin is still there and certain practices (homosexuality and witchcraft, for example) are still forbidden.  But they don't have the same command of death as a result.\n\nWhat you're referencing is Levitical law without the presence of Jesus to atone for the sins of the people.  Since I assume you didn't invent this list yourself, I would hypothesize it's actually used as a criticism of Jewish culture; or a particular figure like Dr. Laura.
1101422
Three separate points in time, so three separate issues.\n\nFirst, sex and conception. Both parties have the right to make decisions on whether they are being involved. Non-consensual sex is called rape, whether it's male or female. \n\nThird (yes, I'm skipping second for now), there is after birth. Again, both parents are equally involved and have the same rights and obligations. Both are liable for child support, based on what they can afford.\n\nSecond, we have the period during pregnancy, after conception but before live birth. Let's split this into two separate periods.\n\nIn the last few months, called post-viability, the fetus is capable of living on its own (with medical help). So, who has rights during this time. The two lives directly involved -- the fetus and the mother. The father is not directly involved, since he's not contributing anything to helping the fetus grow. So, he has no rights to affect this part of the process.\n\nSo far, during these stages, there's no real argument about who is involved, and whose rights are at issue.\n\nThe argument comes during the first part of the pregnancy, pre-viability where there is just an embryo that cannot survive on its own. Because it cannot survive on its own, it is not an independent life. It's irrelevant for this discussion whether it's a human life at all or not, because whether it is or not, it's not an independent life. Thus, it does not have independent rights. So, the only person directly involved with independent rights is the mother.\n\nNow, many state governments say that even if the embryo does not have independent rights, the state can still assert rights on its behalf. Thus, you have arguably two parties involved -- the mother and the state (on behalf of the potential future baby). \n\nHowever, in no other legal situation anywhere does a possible future potential person or controversy merit legal protection. Maybe this situation is unique, and special rules are in order. Maybe it's not. \n\nBut either way, the sperm-donor is not directly involved during the first few months of the pregnancy (after conception), and so has no rights. Also, no legal obligations during this period.\n\nSo the only question is whether the government should be allowed to assert rights, on behalf of the future potential fetus. And personally, I don't trust the government to make those kind of decisions, so I'd rather leave it up to the mother alone during that time.
615415
It does.  But what it should NOT cover is those people holding at signs that say "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" at a soldiers funeral.  But on abortion, it's covered.
75104
Orthodox Judaism teaches that abortion is wrong in all cases except for where the mother's life is threatened.  Less orthodox Jews often cite the teaching of Judaism that life does not begin until birth to defend abortion.  But please notice that Orthodox Jews also have the tradition that life begins at birth, and are STILL against abortion except in the one case I mentioned.\n\nHinduism is a vast religion, with no "Church" or organization to declare the ultimate authority for all Hindus.  So you will find Hindus with varying beliefs.  However, it is fundamental to almost all Hindus that life is sacred -- all life.  Ahimsa means non-violence, and this extends to all life, and this is why most Hindus try to be vegetarians.  So naturally, they would be against abortion.  Having said that, it is ironic that in India, there are many women who have abortions, because they can't afford to have a girl.  So if the ultrasound shows that the child is female, they will often abort her.  This is because the female's family is expected to pay for the wedding, and this is a hardship on poor families.  I find this very unfortunate.\n\nI have not heard anything specifically about Buddhism and their views of abortion, but I assume they would be against it, because Buddhism, like Hinduism, promotes Ahimsa - non-violence.  \n\nI have not heard the Islamic view of the matter.
1108382
The answer here is very easy. When you talk about the legalisation of abortion in a country, you are not talking about whether or not abortion (or life) is a good thing or a bad thing. That is a question of ethics and/or religious belief. It is not a question of law.\n\nWhether or not to have an abortion is a choice. People who believe that abortion should be legal believe that women should have that choice. People who believe it should be a crime thus want to take away that element of choice. By defiition then, they are anti-choice.\n\nI have heard a lot of 'pro-life' people call the opposition 'anti-life'. They are specifically trying to bring the legal question back into the religious agenda, and they are overgeneralising.\n\nIt is possible to be pro-life, ethically, and pro-choice, legally.
776630
Far too many.\nOnly a  thought process that has been asundered by liberalism will say abortion is not an issue.\n\nDilation and partial extraction is inducing labor to the point where the almost developed fetus's head is exposed so it can be bifurcated and the brain removed.\n\nHumanity is served by this?\n\nDon't confuse medical necessity with barbarity.
670979
They are about as restrictive as you can get. They have a law prohibiting most abortions, though it is Unconstitutional.\n\nThey ban Post Viabilty abortions, partial birth abortions,parenyal consent, informed consent and waiting periods, Licensed physician requirement,andprohibit the use of state funds for abortion except when the woman's life is endangered.\n\nMany of these have been ruled unconstitutional by other states and of course SD ban on abortion is unconstitutional.\n\nThey must have a lot of rich people who need babies.\n\nHate to tell them but mosr women do not give their children up for adoption. Well over 80%.
532042
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)[1], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.\n\nThe decision in Roe v. Wade prompted a decades-long national debate over whether terminating pregnancies should be legal (or more precisely, whether a state can deem the act illegal if it chooses to do so); the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication; and the role of religious views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade became one of the most politically significant Supreme Court decisions in history, reshaping national politics, dividing the nation into "pro-choice" and "pro-life" camps, and inspiring grassroots activism.\n\nOpposition to Roe comes primarily from those who viewed the Court's decision as illegitimate for straying too far from the text and history of the Constitution, and those possessing beliefs about the personhood of fetal human life.\n\nSupport for Roe comes from those who view the decision as necessary to preserve women's equality and personal freedom, and those who believe in the privacy of individual over collective rights, although the opposition to Roe often reference the privacy of the individual when referring to the unborn child.
1151363
Both. But god is more violent about it:\n\n  The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.  Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you.  It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone.  I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre.  But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered."  O LORD, what should I request for your people?  I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk.  The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them.  I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions.  I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels.  The people of Israel are stricken.  Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.  And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children."  (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
751636
Don't know about the partial.  In SD, the most restrictive ban on abortion was soundly defeated, and in CA the parental notification law was also soundly defeated.\n\nFundies were again given a nice dose of reality.  Abortion rights and and woman's right to chose will never go away.
1002456
Legal precedents for Roe?  I suggest you read the decision. The majority opinion reviews the history of abortion jurisprudence.  Roe is the first case to elevate abortion to a constitutional position.   \n\nIt's hard to respond to your question, without knowing your thesis, but for earlier cases protecting various family rights see, for example,  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). \n\nThe court cited 143 precedents in the Roe decision- - not that the cases dealt with abortion.\n\nThere is an interesting analysis and criticism of Roe in the amicus brief filed in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services at 1988 U.S. Briefs 605 filed by the United States Catholic Conference.  \n\nWhether you are an abortion supporter or foe, Roe is a result oriented decision. Hope this is helpful.
112993
I hope someone with real legal expertise will give an answer to this. \n\nMy understanding from news articles is that often such a person is charged with assaulting two people -- and that just starts more arguments in court about when life begins!\n\n(edit)\nOnce you stated Michigan I was able to do some searching. It took some work. \n\nHere's one of the things I found posted on the National Right to Life website:\n\n"Michigan:  The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 750.90a through 750.90f)"\n\nSearch for yourself in Yahoo or Google using the search terms "Michigan Fetal Protection Act" (without the quotes) and you will find more citations.
391190
If you have a strong stomach, this website will help you gathering facts.  There is a video that automatically pops up. Close it if you don't want to watch it...it is gruesome.\n\nhttp://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-case.html\n\nAbortion in not mentioned in the Bible.  Abortion is a recent proceedure that was not around in the days the bible was written.\n\nBut, God does care for the unborn\nExodus 21:22-25 (NIV)  \n    "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. [23] But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.\n\nGod does care if we kill our children... \n\nLeviticus 18:21 (NIV)  (Child sacrifice)\n    " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord. \n\nLeviticus 20:3-4 (NIV)  \n    I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. [4] If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death,\n\nPsalm 139:13-16 (NKJV)  \nFor You formed my inward parts;\nYou covered me in my mother's womb. \n14I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;\nMarvelous are Your works,\nAnd that my soul knows very well. \n15My frame was not hidden from You,\nWhen I was made in secret,\nAnd skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. \n16Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.\nAnd in Your book they all were written,\nThe days fashioned for me,\nWhen as yet there were none of them.
945547
more sore loser crying from the right.trying to equate the legal act of abortion with the war in Iraq that was started on a lie is ridiculous.your own self righteousness is your undoing.to put this in your terms,its o.k. to kill men, women and children for oil and the financial advancement of your friends at haliburton.But aborting a non-being by legal means in order to not fill the orphanages with unwanted children that the likes of you would never adopt is wrong.brilliant.
975330
death sentence of prisoners.\n\ncontinued practice of illegalized abortion by some.\n\nfamily planning is disregarded by the church.\n\nand that's all i remember.