In part one of this series, we explained the reasons why many Jewish people are pro-choice. Pro-choice secular Jewish people reject the pro-life view for the same reasons as the wider pro-choice culture; namely, they do not view the fetus as a human person with rights or claim that the mother’s rights over her body trump the fetus’ right to life. Pro-choice religious Jewish people argue that, since in their view, both Scripture and Jewish tradition do not view the fetus as a person, Judaism is unequivocally pro-choice.

In this article, we will show that both Scripture and Jewish tradition value the unborn child’s right to life and that both science and philosophy reveal that the unborn baby is a unique human person from the moment of conception.

What Scripture Says about the Unborn

The Jewish Scriptures place a high value on human life in the womb. Numerous passages of Scripture demonstrate this fact. In Psalm 139:13–16, King David wrote the following:

For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret. . . . Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.

In this passage, David praised the Lord for how God intricately “wove” him together in his mother’s womb and knew the plans He had for him before he was born. This passage implies David’s life and personhood began in the womb.

Similarly, the Lord told the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). The prophet Isaiah wrote, “The Lord called Me from the womb; from the body of My mother He named Me” (Isa 49:1b). Job declared, “Did not He who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15).

Many other passages restate this same truth concerning God’s intimate involvement with forming life in the womb and how His plans for that person’s life begin during that time (cf. Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 44:2, 46:3, 49:5). In addition, the Bible, including a great many passages from the Tanakh (Old Testament), “declares that life is a sacred, God-given gift (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:7; Deut. 30:15–19; Job 1:21; Ps. 8:5; 1 Cor. 15:26), especially the life of children (Ps. 127:3–5, Luke 18:15–16), and condemns those who take it away (Exod. 20:13; 2 Kings 1:13; Amos 1:13–14).”[1]

As discussed in part one, the religious Jewish pro-choice argument states that, since the Torah’s punishment for accidentally murdering a fetus results in a fine while the punishment for killing the mother is a capital offense, Judaism is therefore pro-choice. The passage in question, Exodus 21:22–25, says the following: “When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life” (JPS).

We believe handling Exodus 21:22–25 in this way to justify abortion is flawed for four reasons. First, this passage deals with an unintentional, negligent assault on a pregnant woman, not the intended murder of the baby inside her womb, as is the case with abortion.

Second, that the punishment differs depending on whether the mother is killed or the unborn baby is killed is because of their different legal status, not the fact that one is a person and the other is not. For example, in that same chapter a few verses later (Exodus 21:29–32), if a bull kills an indentured servant, the Torah says the bull’s owner only needs to pay a fine to the servant’s owner. But if the bull kills anyone else (non-servants), the bull’s owner must be killed for allowing his bull to kill a person. We know this does not mean the servant was not a person, but that his legal status was different.

Third, Scripture elsewhere refers to the unborn baby as a valued human person, as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs.

Fourth, it is worth noting that some Jewish rabbis interpret the verse to be speaking about an involuntary premature birth as opposed to a miscarriage. Rabbi Schlomo Nachman explains, “The passage, in my opinion, is to ‘a premature birth’ when the context is considered. The text actually says that if the child ‘departs’ [‘yasa’] the womb and no other damage ensues from the event. In other words, if because of the struggle the baby is born early but is otherwise fine, then the men may be required to pay damages for their carelessness but no more. ‘But if other damage ensues,’ i.e. . . . if the child dies as a result the men are guilty of the murder, a life for life.”[2]

What Jewish Tradition Says about the Unborn

Jewish tradition teaches that the fetus is not a full person, or nefesh, until he or she is born. Therefore, one is allowed to kill the unborn baby to save the mother’s life.[3] Jewish pro-choice advocates argue that these facts make Judaism pro-abortion, but that is far from the case. Jewish tradition values the life of the unborn baby, forbids elective abortion, and only permits abortion in extreme cases in which the mother’s life is in danger. Commenting on Mishnah Oholot 7:6, which allows for an abortion to save the life of a mother, Judah David Bleich, professor of Talmud at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, writes,

It may readily be inferred from this statement that destruction of the fetus is prohibited in situations not involving a threat to the life of the pregnant mother. Incorporation of the justificatory statement “for her life takes precedence over its life” within the text of the Mishnah indicates that in the absence of this consideration abortion is not sanctioned. Tosafot (Sanhedrin 59a; Hullin 33a) states explicitly that feticide, although entailing no statutory punishment, is nevertheless forbidden. . . . Tosafot, on the basis of the Mishnah, apparently reasons that although feticide does not occasion capital punishment, the fetus is nevertheless sufficiently human to render its destruction a moral offense.[4]

Fred Rosner, professor of medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, asks the following rhetorical questions: “If an unborn child is not considered a person or nefesh, why should its destruction not be allowed under all circumstances? Why is only a threat to the mother’s life or health an acceptable reason for therapeutic abortion?”[5] He then provides the following answers in his article, “Medical Ethics of Judaism” in The Encyclopedia of Judaism:

First, interference with pregnancy would constitute expulsion of semen for naught, an act akin to coitus interruptus and strictly prohibited in Jewish law. Second, the unborn fetus, although not a person, would have sufficient status, if it were aborted after forty days of conception, to require its mother to undergo the same ritual purification process required if she had given birth to a live child. The same process is also prescribed for a woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage. Thus, the fetus can be considered to be a “partial person.” Third, one is not permitted to wound one-self. A woman undergoing abortion by manipulative means is considered to be intentionally wounding herself. Fourth, abortion entails some danger, and Jewish law prohibits intentionally placing oneself in danger. Fifth, many rabbis prohibit abortion when there is no threat to the mother, because they deem such termination of pregnancy an appurtenance of murder and so morally forbidden. The unborn fetus is a potential person that, without interference, will be born and achieve the status of a person. The final and perhaps most important consideration in prohibiting abortion on demand in Jewish law is the fact that the Talmud permits abortion only when the mother’s life is endangered [emphasis mine]. The implication is that when the mother’s life is not at stake, it is prohibited to destroy the unborn fetus.[6]

For these reasons, The Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, along with other pro-life Jewish groups and rabbis, wrote an amicus brief for the Supreme Court of the United States encouraging its landmark Dobbs v. Jackson decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In it, they wrote

Amici are Jewish religious leaders and organizations who agree that legal abortion in America is an egregious wrong that must be rectified. Jewish law prohibits abortion and Judaism obligates us to protect innocent life in the womb. . . . This pleading to the Court is Amici’s attempt to rescue innocent children in the womb from execution, as commanded in our Bible, Proverbs 24:11–12: “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay everyone for what they have done?” . . . Pregnancy and childbearing are considered religious and social responsibilities, making it incumbent upon Jews to protect the safety and health of both mother and child. Jewish doctrine also recognizes that in very rare cases the infant life in the womb may pose a serious threat to the mother’s life, and in this rare instance a termination is permissible. This very narrow exception to the prohibition of abortion in Judaism was biblically justified for a breech birth. Life threatening situations now occur in less than 1% of all pregnancies, making this exception almost inapplicable. Abortion is antithetical to Torah principles. The act of abortion, and the industry that promotes and benefits financially from it, violates all Jewish ethics and morals. The history of Judaism includes many existential threats to Jewish life in the form of state-sponsored mass murder. This makes us especially sensitive to the plight of the child in the womb, whose protection under the law was completely abrogated by Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This tragic human rights violation must be remedied.[7]

As the Jewish Pro-Life Foundation explained, evidence from both the Jewish Scriptures and Jewish tradition reveals Judaism is pro-life, contra the narrative that the overthrow of Roe v. Wade violates a religious right to an abortion. The only exception the Talmud permits is if the unborn baby poses a threat to the mother’s life. In our current society, with its scientific advances, abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother. Some treatment necessary for the mother’s health may cause the indirect death of her unborn child, such as removal of a fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy or administration of chemotherapy to a mother with cancer, but this is not an abortion––the direct killing of the mother’s child in the womb. The Association of Pro-Life Physicians explains,

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.[8]

In addition, it is important to point out that while pro-abortion advocates often cite such exceptional cases as the mother’s health to justify pro-choice laws, the vast majority of women who seek abortions do so for elective reasons. A 2004 survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute revealed that most women said they chose to have an abortion due to concerns that a child would interfere with their education, work, or ability to care for other dependents; financial reasons; not wanting to be a single mother or have relationship problems; and not wanting any more children.[9] Twelve percent of women cited health concerns, ranging “from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.”[10] One percent of women sought an abortion because they were victims of rape, and less than 0.5 percent became pregnant as a result of incest.[11] Women seeking abortions in the above situations need to be loved, helped, and supported, not encouraged to kill their babies.

What Science Says about the Unborn

The pro-life life argument is a simple one: It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Some pro-choice advocates deny the personhood of the pre-born baby, but decades of scientific evidence reveal that a unique human life forms at the moment of conception (fertilization).[12] When egg and sperm unite, a single, unified cell emerges with its own distinctive DNA––all of the genetic material the young child will need to grow and develop over the span of his or her lifetime.[13]

The consensus among biologists is that human life begins at conception. According to a 2018 survey of 5,502 biologists from 1,058 academic institutions, 95 percent of biologists agreed with the biological view “a human life begins at fertilization.”[14] Dr. Alfred M. Mongiovanni, former professor of obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated,

I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception . . . human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood . . . any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.[15]

Similarly, Harvard University Medical School Professor Micheline Matthew-Roth said, “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” Even the owner of Oregon’s largest abortion clinic stated under oath, “Of course human life begins at conception.”[16]

Some pro-choice advocates try to avoid the obvious conclusion that since the fetus is a human being it possesses the right to life by claiming the unborn are humans but not persons. Such semantical gymnastics do not change reality. When the Fourteenth Amendment was written guaranteeing one’s right to life, humans and persons were synonymous terms. As pro-life author Randy Alcorn writes, “The only objective questions we can ask are ‘Is it human; that is, did it come from human beings?’ ‘Is it a genetically unique individual?’ ‘Is it alive and growing?’ If the answers are yes, then ‘it’ is in fact a ‘he’ or ‘she,’ a living person, possessing rights and deserving of legal protection.”[17]

There is no moral difference between a baby in the womb and a newborn. The only differences between the two are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.[18]

• Size: Embryos are smaller than newborns, but size does not determine one’s value. We know bigger people are not more valuable than smaller people.
• Level of development: Embryos are less developed than newborns, but this is not relevant concerning their value. A four-year-old is less developed than a fourteen-year-old, yet we know both are equally deserving of human rights. Some add that self-awareness makes one human, therefore the pre-born child is not a human person. “But if that is true,” pro-life advocate Scott Klusendorf writes, “newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.”[19]
• Environment: The environment of the unborn and newborns differ, but one’s location––whether inside the womb or outside the womb––does not determine one’s worth. The birth canal does not magically confer personhood. We know someone’s value does not change based on where he or she resides.
• Degree of dependency: The degree of dependency that the unborn and the newborn require differs, but the degree to which one is dependent on another does not determine one’s value. Newborns are likewise very dependent on their mothers, but we know they possess human rights. Klusendorf writes, “If viability makes us human, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.”[20]

In conclusion, we believe Scripture, Jewish tradition, and science all affirm that unborn children are valued human beings, made in God’s image, deserving of the right to life, and that abortion is the wrongful taking of that life.

by Jennifer Miles

_________________________________________________________

[1] Paul H. Wright, “Abortion,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 10.

[2] “Rabbi Shlomo Nachman, “Jewish Pro-Life Replies to Jewish Pro-Abortion Claims,” Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, accessed September 16, 2022, https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qIpfBA37nZ_hUd-ECIdpBSpRPKYrQQ7/view.

[3] Fred Rosner, “Medical Ethics of Judaism,” in Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green, eds., The Encyclopedia of Judaism (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 859–861.

[4] J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1 (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1977), 327–328.

[5] Fred Rosner, “Medical Ethics of Judaism,” in Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green, eds., The Encyclopedia of Judaism (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 2000), 859–861.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Dobbs v. Jackson, brief amicus curiae of Jewish Pro-Life Foundation, et al., SupremeCourt.gov, 2–4, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184580/20210721170924501_41204%20pdf%20Parker.pdf.

[8] Lauren Enriquez, “Is abortion ever necessary to ‘save the life of the mother’?” Live Action, October 2, 2013, https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortion-ever-necessary-save-life-mother/.

[9] Lawrence B. Finer, et al., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Guttmacher Institute, accessed September 19, 2022, 113, https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/3711005.pdf.

[10] Ibid., 112.

[11] Ibid., 113.

[12] “Throughout history, the words fertilization and conception have often been used interchangeably. Both referred to that time when egg and sperm joined into a single unified cell. Fertilization was the process by which the sperm penetrated the ovum. Conception was the outcome,” Randy Alcorn, Why Pro Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2012), 12.

[13] Ibid., 12.

[14] Steven Andrew Jacobs, “Biologists’ Consensus on ‘When Life Begins,’” SSRN, July 25, 2018,  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703.

[15] Alcorn, 13.

[16] Alcorn, 14.

[17] Alcorn, 15–16.

[18] Scott Klusendorf, “How to Defend Your Pro-Life Views in 5 Minutes or Less,” Life Training Institute, accessed September 21, 2022, https://prolifetraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FiveMinute1.pdf.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.