The degree of tolerance towards abortion

Regarding the opinions that it is appropriate to kill Jews, it is clearly outside the ”radius of tolerance” because it is completely devoid of logic (and therefore also illegitimate). But as you wrote in the article “The Price of Tolerance” sometimes there are opposing opinions that can both be logical and legitimate (in terms of these and those being the words of the living God) and yet only one of them is correct. In a case like this, you argued that the opinion that is opposed to yours should be respected, in order to preserve the value of the autonomy of others. Therefore, if we say that the ”pro choice” opinion is a legitimate opinion, would it be correct to say that this opinion and those who hold it should be respected, or would we say that the ”radius of tolerance” is reduced inversely proportional to the price of tolerance (in this case the price is high because it involves human life) and therefore, the high price will result in the pushing of the "pro choice" opinion outside the circle of tolerance.

Why does killing a fetus seem legitimate to you? It's not like killing a person, but in my opinion it's really not legitimate. The only reason to see it as legitimate is the number of people who are wrong about it. But I'm not sure that's a relevant criterion. In my opinion, it's not within the radius of tolerance because of two criteria: 1. The price. 2. The reasonableness of the consideration. But of course it's difficult to separate them, because the consideration is also unreasonable because it's a matter of personal law.

First of all, congratulations on your honest and courageous answer. However, before your followers commit a violent act, I would like to argue that sometimes abortion is a reasonable act, such as the expectation of a miscarriage or a deformity where it can be estimated that a person would have preferred not to be born, or suspicion of the mother's mental health.

Hello Yoni. First, today it is common to support abortion simply because of a woman's right to her own body and not to benefit the fetus itself. I understand that we have no argument about that, and my enthusiastic followers have thereby received from both of us the authority of 007.

But your words should also be discussed regarding a disabled person. Isn't murdering a severely disabled person murder? Isn't it murder when a person ends their life for some reason and you kill them? What's more, this is a person who didn't tell you that's what they wanted. This is just your assessment. Beyond that, there is the philosophical problem that exists in wrongful procreation. If that person never comes into the world, then his position has no weight. See my article about this here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/

There is no dispute that this is a barbaric and cruel act. But there are realities in which barbaric and cruel acts are forced. Incidentally, a woman's right to her own body is not a worthless argument. Although it is null and void compared to the fetus's right to live, it is admirable for the ectopic…

Following this question, what will be the ruling regarding abortions of fetuses with severe physical defects?

It's hard to determine something clear and unambiguous, and I still think it's forbidden. Halachically, there is room for permitting, but morally it's difficult to permit.

Following on from this question, do you think it is possible to file a lawsuit against abortions in the High Court? After all, the Human Dignity and Liberty Law prohibits harming a person's life, and the law itself did not define the term "person" (to the best of my knowledge and understanding). As long as the law did not define who a person is, nor did it explicitly exclude the fetus from the group of humans, there is apparently no express statement by the legislator that the fetus is not a person, and therefore the Human Dignity and Liberty Law applies to it unless proven otherwise. It could be argued that there is a law that explicitly permits abortions, but I once heard Justice Aharon Barak say that since the Human Dignity and Liberty Law is a basic law, given a conflict between it and another ordinary law, the Basic Law prevails over the ordinary law. What do you think?

Indeed, this is the content of Barak's "constitutional revolution." As for the substance of the matter, I have great doubts, although of course I am not a lawyer. In my opinion, there is no chance of winning in such a High Court. What will the legal arguments be? I don't know. Perhaps the woman's right to her own body (assuming that a fetus is certainly not a person even without a definition in law. Just as a chair is not a person, even without a definition in law). And perhaps it is possible to rely on a conflict between the woman's interest and that of the fetus (she does not want to revive him in her body, just as if I do not want to give money to someone, I do not owe it even if he is starving to death).