I am a frum man - blessed with children. I clearly don't have a womb, so whatever I say should be taken with a grain of salt.
I've been thinking a lot about abortion and what's going in the news lately.
Me too
I'm a frum woman, mother of 2, and being pro-life seemed almost instinctual to me. But beyond my personal beliefs, debating the legality or illegality of abortion requires understanding the (euphemistically named) pro-choice position.
So the defense agains the common pro-abortion arguments are as follows:
1. "My body, my choice": This argument (which often gets intertwined with the viability argument) imagines that since the fetus is inside the mother's womb and cannot survive on its own, it's considered part of the mother. This would be the equivalent of assuming that a car parked inside a garage is part of the house. Or that a cake baking in the oven is part of the oven. The viability argument isn't too sure-footed either. A 3-month-old baby would also die if they were left alone. A toddler would also die if no one would feed them. Some adult husbands would die if they weren't fed 
. The fact that someone requires care doesn't mean that they don't have the right to exist.
You analogy is false. That three month old baby can live if someone else were to feed it. If a 3-month old fetus was pulled out of the uterus - there is literally no way it can survive. (Yes we can fertilize embryos in a lab and implant them, but we can't move an already growing fetus to another womb).
2. "A fetus isn't a baby": Well, that's right, a fetus isn't a baby. Just the same way a baby isn't a child and a child isn't a teenager and a teenager isn't an adult. They're all at different developmental stages. But ultimately, they are all human. It's a human fetus. In fact, if you can handle it- take a look at these first trimester images and tell me that this isn't a human.
What it looks like is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it isn't a viable human being.
3. The rape/incest case: As horrible and as tragic as these cases are, getting an abortion doesn't take away the rape. Furthermore, the unborn child isn't guilty of the crimes of his father. How can we justify taking someone's innocent life for a crime he didn't commit?
What about the victim of the rape? This person was attacked and violated. She will probably have physical and psychological trauma for the rest of her life. As you have b"h been obligated twice in your life so far to say birchas hagomel because you survived childbirth, I imagine you understand that pregnancy brings both financial requirements and medical risks - we're going to victimize the victim of a crime even further? We're going to make her risk her own life for a fetus that isn't even a 'ben kayama'?
For the offensive play, pro-lifers point out the brutality of abortion.
Many people don't even know that most surgical abortions involve at the very least the dismemberment of the fetus. While rare, late term saline abortions have the baby undergo chemical burns from the inside out. If you have the stomach for it, you can google other late term abortion horrors.
You can learn about the actual details of an abortion procedure here, it's not the same as having a cancerous, clump of tissue removed.
There is evidence that suggest that the fetus can feel pain from 16weeks and on:
On the scientific front things seem clear. A fetus is it's own human being, with it's own distinct set of DNA.
According to the CDC - which is probably the most accurate and unbiased source - 91% of all abortions happen before 13 weeks, and about 65% happen before 8 weeks. Generally speaking, the later term abortions are situations where the mother is at risk.
But things get murkier- what do we say to those babies being born into poverty, into immature and even neglectful families, those born with conditions that will make their life a struggle? What about those babies who are simply unwanted? Are they better off dead?
What if in the future we will have guaranteed pain-free abortions? What if scientists could find incontrovertible truth that babies are not conscious prior to birth? Would that change things?
Pro-life proponents would still argue "no". And that brings us to the heart of the matter: the sanctity of life. And this is the underlying answer to all of the pro-life arguments. This is why it doesn't matter what Life is, or when exactly it starts. Life is precious. Life is the most. precious. thing. Even the life of an unwanted, inconvenient baby. Even the life of a rapist's child. Even the life of a baby with Down Syndrome. Even the life of a baby who will grow up to live a poor, hard, obstacle-ridden, mostly miserable life.
At least that's how I see it.
While I can't be one to argue with your feelings. It's clear you value the life of the unborn more than the life and/or wellbeing of the mother!
If g-d forbid a woman in pregnancy has a medical issue - and only she or the baby could survive - would you still feel that way? Would you be inclined to tell that woman to keep her pregnancy and die in order to preserve the life of the baby?
Can you imagine for a second, a 20-year-old girl, about to hit the shidduch circuit who gets raped by a non-jew on her way home from seminary? Are you advocating that she keep the baby of the criminal that impregnated her. I'm sure her shidduch prospects would be impressed that she preserved the sanctity of life by keeping this baby with the shaygitz father that impregnated her. I am sure that will go over great when that baby becomes bar mitzvah and gets called to the torah without his true father's name. I'm sure he'll have no issue fitting in in the jewish world (because let's face it, giving up a frum baby for adoption to a non-jewish or non-frum family is probably just as bad as getting an abortion).
But this is no longer a cold-hard, logical, scientific truth. The sanctity of life is a uniquely religious idea. Because we are made in the image of G-d, that is why human life is precious. If we remove G-d from the picture- is life precious from an evolutionary standpoint? Is the 80-90 year lifespan of one (statistically prone to be) unremarkable human important among the millions of years, millions of species that precede and succeed it? Not much. Should this clump of molecules, this group of atoms matter more than this amoeba, that bacteria, this asteroid shooting, hurtling around in galaxy? And if this particular life will be difficult and often unhappy, then maybe it's even a kindness to kill it.
So for me, ultimately it's an issue of morality. And morality is inherently a religious constructs. Again, if nature is king and evolution dictates the progression of the world- why does social justice matter? In fact, in today's parlance, evolution is 'racist'! According to natural selection, it's only inevitable that 'the fittest' end up on top. That the smartest and strongest dominate and exploit the weaker isn't evil or unjust- it's only the way nature is designed!
and yet in the torah/mishna/gemara we see that:
- the punishment for damages that end a pregnancy isn't equivalent to murder.
- A child isn't considered a viable human being until 30 days out of the womb.
So now, does immoral = illegal?
Should it?
As a frum jew, from a Torah perspective, something is illegal precisely because it is immoral. But is that something we should pursue in a secular government? What about separation of church and state?
I remember frum Jews posting somewhat celebratory messages when gay marriage was legalized in 2015. The government shouldn't dictate the terms of morality, they wrote.
But where is the line drawn? And what kind of arguments can be made when God is removed from the picture?
The only reason something is illegal is because the society that we live in have deemed it as such. I think most people in this world - regardless of religion - would think that Adultery is immoral. While adultery is grounds for divorce, and a reason to sink a political campaign, it isn't illegal.
There are those that suggest making permanent changes to your children's bodies is immoral as well, after all if we're arguing for the rights to save the unborn from their parents, why not fight for the rights of the unaware - there are movements now to not only ban ear piercings for young children, but bris mila as well. While you and I do not, some people think that circumcizing a baby is immoral as well, and it soon might in fact be legal.
Where do I draw the line? that's a good question, and a hard one - the laws that protect me as a member of a religion, should not only protect members of other religions, but also those not bound by religion.
I will leave you with a little story. Someone close to me had a situation many years ago where late into the wife's pregnancy (about 18 weeks) a medical condition that put her in serious danger was discovered. The couple consulted with several rabonim and after some discussion were given a heter to terminate the pregnancy. B"H this couple were blessed with healthy children after this (in addition to the ones they had prior).
I imagine that there are other such situations where this type of abortion is warranted, and I hope that you will agree with me. The problem is, under a lot of the new laws being introduced, these logical exemptions - at the very least Rape, Incest, or Medical Danger to the mother - are not exempt.
Which means that even in these cases, where there is a clear - Mother's life or Baby's life - situation, a doctor wouldn't be allowed to perform those abortions, at the very least, I find this reprehensible.
