Q&A: Abortions
Abortions
Question
Hello and blessings. I’ve seen arguments that challenge the view that a day after conception the embryo already has a right to life. I know that you support the moral claim that abortion, even one day after conception, is forbidden and is murder. I’d be glad if you would share your opinion on the following questions:
1. If there were a vehicle full of embryos fertilized outside the womb (one day after fertilization) (I assume this technology doesn’t currently exist, but let’s imagine a future world in which it does), and you had the opportunity to save them, or alternatively a one-year-old baby standing ליד the truck, whom would you save? Seemingly, morally speaking, you should save the embryos in the truck.
2. What is your position regarding birth-control pills, which again, in effect cause the abortion of a fertilized egg? It seems that morally, someone who takes pills is causing murder on a regular basis, at least several times a year, and therefore taking pills should be completely forbidden.
Answer
1. In Jewish law itself, the mother’s life takes precedence over the life of the fetus, and therefore if there is danger to the mother one certainly aborts the fetus (as opposed to a baby, where one would not). The explanation is not that fetal life has no value, but that its life has less value than that of a person. From here it is clear that a human life takes precedence over embryos. Here Jewish law and morality go hand in hand.
2. The closer we are to the stage of sperm and egg before fertilization, the lower the value of the life involved. So there is indeed a moral prohibition in the case of the pill, but it can be overridden by significant reasons. Of course, it is preferable to use means that prevent fertilization beforehand.
Discussion on Answer
As far as I know, combined pills (estrogen and progesterone), when taken according to instructions, prevent ovulation, so usually fertilization does not take place. It’s true that sometimes ovulation still occurs, but that happens in a minority of cases. So speaking here about “abortion of a fertilized egg” is very inaccurate.
1. You’re drifting between different questions. The question whether there is room for quantitative considerations in the laws of saving lives is not connected in any way to the status of the fetus and abortion. It comes up in the trolley dilemma as well, among other places. I don’t have quantitative measures for the value of human life.
2. Yes.
I saw the questions here and was puzzled by the discussion.
1. The mother’s life takes precedence because the fetus has the status of a pursuer. The question here is different.
2. Is using a condom preferable to pills? Even if you take the stringent view that a condom counts as wasting seed, here we have a clash between Jewish law and morality, and it may be preferable to use rubber, which is halakhically forbidden, rather than contraceptive pills, which are also morally forbidden.
1. A pity over assertions that are astonishing and unfounded. It is explicit in the Talmud that the fetus does not have the status of a pursuer. The practical difference is that once it has brought out its head, one does not kill it. If this were actually a case of a pursuer, they would kill it even after it had brought out its head. On the contrary, Maimonides has a formulation that sounds as though this is based on the law of a pursuer, and people challenge him from the Talmud. But one should read his wording carefully: he wrote that it is “like a pursuer” after her to kill her. Even according to his view, this is not literally the law of a pursuer.
2. From the standpoint of the laws of murder, a condom is certainly preferable. For practical Jewish law there are additional considerations.
1. I understand. But isn’t there an issue of quantities? Meaning, even if the life of a fetus is worth less than the life of a baby or an adult, if we’re talking about a situation where thousands of embryos are on one side of the scale and only one person on the other, isn’t it morally preferable to save the embryos? Or is your view that one should categorically save a person rather than embryos? (I’m talking about a case where the embryos are one day old.)
And what about the same situation, only now the embryos are already 30 weeks old? I assume their value is higher than that of a one-day-old embryo, but what interests me is your answer regarding a case of thousands of 30-week-old fetuses versus one person.
2. Meaning, there is a moral prohibition involved in taking pills, but it is not as severe as an abortion at a later stage?
Would you call it “a lower-grade murder” or something like that?