Is it True that Jewish Tradition Supports Abortion?

This article explores the claim that Jewish tradition supports abortion. Related topics include how we define “humanity”, how we define “healthcare”, if all brands of Judaism hold comparable beliefs, and challenging general pro-abortion rhetoric as intellectually inconsistent and illogical.

Jewish Rite

Congruent with the modern brand of political apologetics, pro-abortion rhetoric continues to lack logic and reasonable intellectual justification, focusing instead on strong emotional responses and selective evidence collection to reinforce a preferred belief (find more examples here).  Anyone can make a statement and divine selective justifications in perpetuation thereof, but it seems few in the modern era can critically scrutinize personal perspective to arrive at a fair approximation of the objective truth, instead building a case to preserve a preferred point much like a legal team rather than an unbiased jury. 

In an article entitled Judaism is Clear about Abortion appearing on STLJewishLight.org by Dianna Fine and Wendy Flusser, the deceptive premise that abortion “rights” under any circumstance are an instrumental tenement of the Jewish faith is reinforced, sighting limited correlations to Scripture, political ideology, and irrational definitions of “health care”.  

While the article cites specific instances of abortion that even pro-life advocates will often find justifiable, the authors attempt to imply that Jewish tradition supports abortion under any circumstance through these examples, blurring the ethical line between life saving measures and personal inconvenience, while conjuring vague religious justifications.  Their confidently conveyed claims offer a skewed and manipulative perception of reality:

“Judaism is clear about abortion. Our tradition not only permits but requires it in circumstances where the pregnant person’s life is in danger. It is one of many reasons why Jews overwhelmingly support abortion by 83% in all or most cases.”

This fiendishly crafted manipulation forces one to read between the lines.  Each of these statements are factually accurate, yet incredibly misleading.  While the intention is to reinforce that Jewish tradition supports abortion unconditionally with deceptively arranged declarations, a full analysis of reality paints a less definitive picture.  Is it true that Jewish tradition supports abortion?  The short answer is yes, but only in extremely selective cases.  The contextual application of an abortion as an urgent life saving measure is an illogical justification for supporting abortion “in all or most cases” where no threat of explicit harm is present.

According to MyJewishLearning.com, in an article titled Abortion and Judaism, an abortion is primarily authorized in Jewish texts in extreme cases in which the mother’s life is undoubtedly at risk:

“Short of clear threats to a mother’s life, the permissibility of abortion is controversial in Jewish texts.”

How exactly does a characterization of “controversy” indicate clarity rather than an open-ended condition of evidence and interpretation? As identified by My Jewish Leaning, the principal teaching in question, is a Jewish law found in the Mishnah (part of the Talmud), prioritizing a pregnant woman’s health exclusively when facing dire medical circumstances. The Talmud, while completed roughly a millennium following the Torah, is a foundational collection of laws and commentaries based on oral traditions, traditionally asserted as an equal entry of divine inspiration. So, while the source of information sits in high standing with devout Jews, it fails to endorse the full gamut of liberal abortion justifications. In contrast, we can apply many aspects of traditional Judaism in accordance with a pro-life position.

Pro-abortion arguments involving religious texts also commonly incorporate a passage from Exodus 21 in which a pregnant woman suffers an apparent miscarriage resulting from a physical altercation between two men. Punitive consequences of a financial nature are applied to the loss, suggesting to some that a fetus subsequently constitutes as property, conveniently omitting additional details and context. What appears to be implied is not a diminished value of pre-birth life, but a diminished consequence for an accidental death.

Old Testament law repeatedly differentiates between an intentional killing motivated by malicious intent and an accidental killing. A death resulting from what modern, western law defines as first-degree murder, is punishable by death according to Mosaic law. In contrast, the perpetrator of an accidental killing is theoretically granted asylum in a foreign city, with no additional punishment explicitly identified.

According to the aforementioned Bible verse, the accidental inducement of miscarriage incurs punishment defined through spousal determination in addition to a monetary sum established by the judge. It is further qualified that if any “mischief” follows the original offense, a retribution of equal measure applies (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.), but curiously fails to differentiate between the woman and child in this regard. A concrete standard of practice and belief from this passage alone is arguably indeterminable due to perceived vagueness. But to suggest that Jewish tradition supports abortion as a result of this Biblical passage appears inconclusive at best. In contrast, how do pro-abortion sects of Judaism negotiate the numerous occasions in which the Tanakh (Old Testament) references a pre-birth identification of humanity?:

Isaiah 49:1-  Listen to Me, O islands; pay attention, O distant peoples: The LORD called Me from the womb; from the body of My mother He named Me.

Psalm 139:16-  Your eyes saw my unformed body; all my days were written in Your book and ordained for me before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Although an argument can be made from Jewish texts that pre-birth humanity holds a diminished standing, the idea that an unborn child experiences a pre-human condition of relative inconsequential worth analogous to personal property seemingly contradicts a wide range of complimentary doctrine and commentary involving topics of reproduction. An instrumental element of traditional Judaism is the sense that God’s gift of human reproduction should not be taken lightly or misappropriated. So why would God delineate protocols for respecting the human reproduction process…while endorsing the violent termination of the product of human reproduction? That seems extremely inconsistent.

From this analysis, limited scriptural support for abortion in Jewish texts does not appear to reinforce the strong inference from Fine and Flusser that traditional Jewish beliefs are a driving cause for an 83% approval rate for abortion amongst the Jewish population “in all or most cases”. Why would doctrine that conveys limited abortion approval and an air of controversy surrounding the topic inspire an unwavering stance of support? However, as My Jewish Learning identifies, it is certainly fair to say that traditional Jewish doctrine allows for the interpretation of conflicting narratives regarding the sanctity of pre-birth humanity.

Fine and Flusser state that “…every single person’s health is paramount and unassailable; we have an obligation to care for and to protect our bodies and our health and ensure all others can do the same.” as an integral characteristic of Judaism, subsequently concluding that“…we know that access to abortion care is an essential human right.”  However, these two concepts critically oppose one another.  How does terminating a body with a beating heart inside of it constitute an indisputable protection of everyone’s body? 

While Fine and Flusser neglect to identify a woman as the sole proprietor of human reproduction, they feel perfectly comfortable vaguely dehumanizing an unborn human, with no attempt to provide an objective set of criteria to identify protectable humanity, which according to them is “unassailable”.  Unjust termination of an unborn life for superfluous reasons after knowingly creating it is not an “essential human right”; it is the antithesis.

Choosing to Ignore

So, how can it be suggested that Jewish tradition supports abortion “clearly” beyond explicit threats to the mother’s wellbeing? The answer to this question is reliant on political ideology and rhetorical selectiveness more than viable religious content.  Liberal Jews may strongly support and arbitrarily justify unconditional abortion, but under what basis is there any undeniable connection to the traditional teachings of their faith? 

If Jewish tradition supports abortion free of heavy caveats, then why do Orthodox Jews, holding far more closely to the traditional teachings, oppose unconditional abortion?  In a statement from The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America from May 3^rd 2022 regarding the then potential repeal of Roe V Wade, the organization had this to say:

“…We cannot support absolute bans on abortion—at any time point in a pregnancy—that would not allow access to abortion in lifesaving situations.  Similarly, we cannot support legislation that permits “abortion on demand”—at any time point in a pregnancy… Abortion on demand–the “right to choose” (as well as the “right to die”) are thus completely at odds with our religious and halachic values. Legislation and court rulings that enshrine such rights concern us deeply on a societal level.”

How does any of the preceding information illustrate that Jewish tradition supports abortion to the level justified by modern, western liberalism?  Furthermore, this discussion requires a reflection of what religion really is.  What is your “religion” based on?  Is religion man-made or God ordained?  If you dictate preferred interpretations and applied sensibilities regarding your own religious affiliation, then does this not diminish your religion as purely a man-made construct?  Doesn’t this mean that in essence YOU are God, dictating terms and standards?  If your religion is based purely on what “you” believe and what you choose to integrate, then does it not carry as much significance as a garden variety opinion?  If who God is and what He endorses is subjective, then God is objectively irrelevant. 

What the Fine and Flusser article promotes is a liberally modified, cherry-picked version of Judaism, holding a superficial affiliation that carries little beyond subjectively defined significance.  Their rhetoric suggests they want to have it both ways.  They seemingly want to evoke and reject traditional Judaism simultaneously.  What we arrive at as a result is intellectually incoherent, which summarizes a large contingent of pro-abortion perspectives.  Are we trying to impartially determine what God proclaims as truth and righteousness, or exclusively promote our own personal definitions?

As pro-abortion arguments typically do, Fine and Flusser evoke (although vaguely) a demand for “choice” and define all abortion as health care:

“It’s our right to form our families the way we choose, to access the health care we need, to decide whether or when we have children, and to choose how we shape our lives.”

I find this statement fascinating.  In regard to procreation, are these choices not generally made when the pants come off?  In most cases, having intercourse is a choice with a predictable outcome.  So if you are a man or woman who is concerned regarding the physical, psychological, financial, and emotional implications of producing and raising a child, why do you not just abstain from intercourse?  If you cannot control your impulses, then shouldn’t you live with the consequences of this action versus terminating a healthy life you knowingly created who in turn gets no choices?  If restricting abortion is “unconstitutional” as some suggest, should we not reconsider female incarceration under the same pretense?  It also results in a predictable outcome from a conscious choice that has potentially significant effects on physical and emotional health of a woman.

If we can deny post conception humanity, then isn’t any identification of humanity arbitrary and up for debate?  At what magical point does a person become a person?  This is the fundamental question in the abortion debate that pro-abortionists are either unwilling or incapable of answering which would effectively terminate the discussion.  How do we objectively classify protectable humanity, and can we even trust ourselves to determine reasonable definitions?  If we are struggling to define what a woman even is, how can we identify what her “rights” should be?  If we have spent hundreds of years dehumanizing people based on physical attributes without proper recognition of our indiscretions, what if we don’t recognize when we do it again? 

As extreme mainstream ideology blurs distinct boundaries more and more as we have seen, not only will it become more difficult to reasonably debate talking points that don’t have a consistent foundation, but it will also become more and more difficult to fix problems we can’t identify because their characteristics are so fluid.  In the past, pro-abortionists would antagonize a male pro-life advocate for not understanding what it is like to be a woman, attempting to compromise logical arguments with emotion and perception.  As a result of the “trans-gender” movement, you can’t do that anymore.  Not only is the line blurred beyond recognition, but it keeps moving too.

If you are a pro-abortionist reading this article, I have to ask, do you support retro-active or post-birth abortions?  Would you support the introduction of legislation that legally permitted the termination of a child up to three years of age?  Think hard about why or why not.  What if the woman decides after she births her offspring that she doesn’t want it?  Can she not cite mental health, financial status, or emotional resources?  What if she didn’t realize how adversely effected she would be, resulting in substandard care of the subsequent child?  Can we not evoke all of the same justifications as pre-birth abortion?  After all, it is precisely the same organism, regardless of developmental stage or physical location, that was subject to termination prior to birth, so what would be the objective difference?  

If we can revoke the unalienable rights and status of humanity from a “fetus”, why can we not do the same for an “infant”, a “toddler”, or a “teenager”? Maybe life shouldn’t arbitrarily start at birth; maybe we should develop a “probationary” period?  Is the difference between pre and post-birth abortion simply because it is harder to deny what you are terminating?  Of course, do your own research. As ridiculous as this may appear to some of you, legislative action has already commenced to validate such a vile line of thought…

Destruction as “Healthcare”

The idea of unconditional abortion as healthcare is absurd and unfounded.  Abortions levy considerable damage to the mind, body, and spirit of those it is inflicted upon under avoidable circumstances.  This perspective undermines creation.  It proposes that the creation of life within a woman is an insignificant process with an inconsequential result easily relegated to a “health decision”, justifying a horrific “medical” procedure which ruthlessly terminates an innocent life and stops a beating heart.  How is stopping a healthy, beating heart knowingly created a product of “health care”?  Rather…it is the antithesis.  If God created intercourse for procreation, then how is subverting the purpose and terminating the result of that union positively reflect our understanding of His creation?

Fine and Flusser identify what they consider to be “extreme” action and belief regarding “anti-abortion” policy.  “Legally” preventing life saving measures should be considered extreme.  If a mother is at medically identified risk of death regarding her pregnancy, then it should be her choice.  How illogical is it to risk two beating hearts in a potentially vain effort to save one, without the prime patient being afforded a reasonable choice?  But is this where the extremity of the pro-life movement begins and ends? 

I think terminating a beating heart justified under personal inconvenience is pretty extreme.  I think that denying humanity based on physical characteristics to promote the perceived rights of another is not only wrong, but reflects the justifications of American slavery.  Is it “extreme” to ask for an objective identification of humanity in an era where we preach that “science is real” but ignore it when it isn’t politically convenient?  Is it extreme to fight for a population that is physically helpless, literally voiceless, and blindly dehumanized?  If that makes me “extreme” in your eyes, I will wear that label proudly as a badge of honor…