Abortion in Jewish and Christian views

I have a friend in the US whom I've known for 50 years plus. He wrote to me this week asking about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs Wade. He wondered if the religious views of the Court might not have had something to do with the ruling. 7 Christians vs 2 Jews.

Here are some of my answers to him:

First, is the Jewish view on abortion. There is NO agreement among Jewish people on the subject of abortion. 

For instance, Chabad (representing the ultra-Orthodox) says this:

The sages of the Talmud point out that the phrase in Genesis “one who sheds the blood of man through man” is more accurately translated as “one who sheds the blood of man within man.” Based on this, Rabbi Ishmael said that under ordinary circumstances the killing of a fetus is considered a capital offence for all descendants of Noah, i.e., humankind.”

But their website adds what they think is somewhat contradictory evidence, but really says it only in a different angle. 

This is another quote from Torah (Exodus): “Should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarried but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders]. 

Since the Torah obligates only monetary compensation but no capital punishment, the Torah seemingly views the fetus as property, not as human life. There are various ways of reconciling these verses. All agree, however, that under ordinary circumstances abortion is prohibited.”

One issue is “full term” babies. According to most Jewish sources, if they are able to reach full term, the unborn then become living beings. If they don’t reach full term, then they must live a full 30 days outside the womb before they are a real person. 

The Talmud states in part that if the “greater part was already born, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.” So, the act of birth changes the status of the unborn from a nonperson to a person (Hebrew word: nefesh). Killing the newborn after this point would be infanticide. No one thinks this is acceptable. The question is then, what about before that actual birth? Many Talmudic sources and commentators on the Talmud substitute the word “head” for “greater part.” Others maintain the “greater part” meaning the trunk/ torso. So, Dave, that’s where I’m guessing you learned about the ‘head’ or ‘crown’ you mention. 

Famous rabbis and commentators like Maimonides and Joseph Caro also considered the viewing of the head to indicate birth. They both also said that by rabbinic decree, even if only one limb of the unborn came out and then retracted, childbirth is considered to have taken place.

Not only is the precise time of the birth significant in determining whether aborting the fetus is permissible to save the mother’s life, but the viability of the unborn must also be taken into account. The newborn child is not considered fully viable until it has survived thirty days following birth, as is stated in both Torah and in the Talmud:

“Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel said: Any human being who lives 30 days is not a nephel [abortus] because it is stated: ‘And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month-old shalt thou redeem (Numbers 18.16) since prior to thirty days it is not certain that he will survive.”

 

Further support for the necessity of a 30‑day postpartum viability period for adjudicating various Jewish legal matters pertaining to the newborn also comes from Maimonides, who said,

“Whether one kills an adult or a day‑old child, a male or a female, he must be put to death if he kills deliberately…provided that the child is born after a full‑term pregnancy. But, if it is born before the end of nine months, it is regarded as an abortion until it has lived for thirty days, and if one kills it during these thirty days, one is not put to death on its account.

Thus, although the newborn infant reaches the status of a person or nefesh, which it didn’t have prior to birth, it still does not enjoy all the legal rights of an adult until it has survived for thirty days postpartum. The death penalty is not imposed if one kills such a child before it has established its viability, but killing it is certainly prohibited because “one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.”

Taken from Biomedical Ethics and Jewish Law, published by KTAV.

All that to say that most traditional Jewish views on birth indicate that the unborn is not really a fully-functioning human until some part of the unborn fetus is viewable (arm, leg, crown), and thus even up to a 9^th-month abortion would be legal. 

 

What about Christian views? if only life were so simple. There are some Christians whose whole raison d'être seems to Include fighting for the rights of the unborn. There are some Christians who have had abortions and there are tons of middle-of-the-pack others. There is no one size fits all theology of abortion/ murder philosophy. The Bible shows God knowing Jeremiah the prophet in the womb (before he was born) and John the Baptist actually filled with the Spirit while in the womb of Elizabeth his mother. Those unborn future Jewish leaders are representative, they say, of all the unborn whose souls have formed already in utero. 

 

I guess the 7 vs 2 of the SCOTUS may well have religious overtones, and certainly that’s one of the big arguments about the Trump appointees, and I hope I’ve helped fill in some thoughts as you continue that processing. Thanks again for asking.