Tobacco and Abortion - The Halachic Parameters

This is the result of a dialogue on the Halachic Parameters of hot-Button issues such as Tobacco and Abortion. Can we employ reasonable techniques or will politically correct emotion overwhelm our best efforts at objective analysis?

Part 1

There are those who believe regarding Tobacco:

Since even one cigarette does physical damage to the body;
Therefore even a single cigarette violates Jewish law.

Q: What about the psychological relief from that cigarette? Apparently - this argument goes - psychological relief in the presence of physical damage has no standing.

Now let's take abortion.

Given any fetus who imposes a physical threat then the mother has the right or obligation to abort. Why? The fetus is deemed a pursuer and forfits its physical right to exist so long as it physically threatens its mother.

Conversely, if the fetus poses no physical threat but rather a psychological one, then combined with the first principle the mother may not abort. This is since psychological relief does not justify definite physical harm, killing or even physically harming the fetus would be off-limits.


Part 2

So if Joe Camel gets a psychological lift from lighting up, then who are we to stop him based upon the physical damage?

Ladies and Gentlemen, can we have consistency?

Or are we REALLY saying:

Since abortion is politically correct, therefore we find Jewish sources to support our agenda
AND conversely
Since smoking is politically incorrect therefore we outlaw even a single cigarette by applying laws of kashrut?

Well Rabbi Rich What's the alternative?

Here is a suggestion:

Get read of sweeping generalizations, platitudes, sloganeering, and propoganda and judge each case on its own merits. But what's the fun if we cannot impose our authoritarian beliefs upon others than ourselves? (Smile)

Part 3

Mr. Ed Frankel Saw through my straw man and responded as follows

I believe that there is a major difference. There is no doubt that those who do smoke get some pleasure from the action, even if it is addiction induced. If it was not enjoyed, it would not be done. Pleasure, I sense, is the psychological lift to which the questioner alludes.


However, deriving pleasure and suffering mental illness are not two sides of the same coin. If we accept that mental illness is an illness, with potential lethal side effects if not treated or if improperly treated, then mental illness ought not be treated differently from any other physical malady.

That does not suggest that every woman who has some stress in her life ought to use that stress to legitimate having an abortion. Heck we all have stresses, and those stresses are part of living. As a father, I also remember the concerns when preparing for the birth of all three of my children. Would any have been construed as rationales for my wife to have an abortion, if she even shared the same doubts?

However, if a woman truly believes her life will be in jeopardy if she gives birth. If bringing a fetus to term presents insufferable hardship that no person in his/her right mind would normally face, is that not an adequate reason for pikuach nefesh?

I in no way suggest that abortion ever become an alternative to birth control. To my mind that would be heinous. However, to compare having an abortion with smoking a cigarette is at its best a reduction ad absurdum.

Ed Frankel

Part 4

FWIW, I think Ed Nailed the reply in a most rational fashion,
however the question remains

Given that pork is prohibited even in minute quantities:

Are cigarettes equally forbidden?
Or
Are cigarettes only forbidden on a habitual, consistent bases but an occasional smoke is OK unlike pork; in that the short-term pleasure is not intrinsically outweighed by long term risk - just like fatty pastrami?

Kt
RRW