The ad hominems aren't worth addressing (and if I'm the staunchest proponent of abortion you know you should probably get out more), but there's something here that's either misinformed or dishonest, and is important to point out.
https://twitter.com/stammaite/status/1433178221890179072
I know two married frum women--by know, I don't mean "heard about"; I mean "see/speak to weekly"--who terminated pregnancies for fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. They did so under the guidance of the greatest poskim in my community.
In one case, the pregnancy was the result of an expensive, physically arduous, and emotional taxing IVF process. Every day she carried the pregnancy with the doomed fetus was a day that she was suffering through well-wishes for the "finally!" pregnancy that wasn't viable.
And, more to the point, the longer she carried this non-viable fetus, the longer she wasn't able to try again to have a desperately-wanted child.
In both cases the terminations were the least bad option given the terrible circumstances.
In both cases the terminations were the least bad option given the terrible circumstances.
A law that allows for abortions in life-threatening emergencies would not have allowed those abortions.
Now, maybe you don't know that frum women have abortions under those circumstances. Maybe you think the poskim shouldn't have permitted them.
But don't pretend that this law will allow women to have abortions in all cases in which their halakhic guidance would permit them.
But don't pretend that this law will allow women to have abortions in all cases in which their halakhic guidance would permit them.
(Also, too, James Baldwin on the subject of "disaffected": “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
And see Plaskow's introduction to Standing Again At Sinai, and Boyarin's introduction to Unheroic Conduct.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
