Religion and abortion

Many religious traditions include views on abortion, and these views span a broad spectrum from acceptance to rejection.

Although individual adherents of various faiths may have varying views on abortion, there is nonetheless a rough correlation between "official" and personal views on the question, and this is more true in some groups than in others.

According to one ABC News Poll, "Religious beliefs" are reported as the main opinion forming influence for 50% of those who oppose abortion in the U.S.; "non-religious beliefs" are reported as the main influence for the plurality of those who support it.

Buddhism

Main article: Buddhist ethics

Traditional Buddhism generally disfavours abortion. The first of the Pancasila, or the five ethical precepts laid down by Buddha Gautama, is, "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living beings." Traditional Buddhists consider abortion the destruction of a living being, and consider it as a violation of the First Precept.

Buddhist teaching commonly holds that sentience is attained at the moment of fertilization ('conception'), and that, with consciousness, comes the capacity for a being to achieve enlightenment. Ahimsa is a Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain concept which advocates nonviolence and respect toward all sentient life within and without the human species. The current Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism, Tenzin Gyatso, has referred to abortion as a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings". However, he has also stated that abortion might be permissible in specific, limited circumstances:

"Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

Nonetheless, Buddhists today remain divided on the subject of induced abortion. Those practicing in Japan and the United States are said to be more tolerant of it, at least under certain conditions, than those who live elsewhere.

The main argument for a tolerant view on abortion might lie in the understanding that by the prohibition of abortion a vicious circle is started which leads to even more suffering due an increase in illegal abortions.

Mizuko kuyo

Jizo statues at Zojo-ji temple in Tokyo

Mizuko kuyo (水子供養 — lit. "water-child memorial service") is a Japanese memorial service held by or for those who have had a miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. This practice has become particularly visible since the 1970s, particularly with the creation of shrines devoted solely to this ritual. Reasons for the performance of these rites can include parental grief, desire to comfort the soul of the fetus, or even fear of retribution from the vengeful spirit. Originally, mizuko kuyo was used to make offerings to Jizo, a Bodhisattva who is believed to protect children. In the Edo period, when famine sometimes lead the poverty-stricken to infanticide and abortion, the practice was adapted to cover these situations as well. Today, the practice of mizuko kuyo continues in Japan, although it is unclear whether it is an historically authentic Buddhist practice. Specifics of the ceremony vary from temple to temple, school to school, and individual to individual. It is common for temples to offer Jizo statues for a fee, which are then dressed in red bibs and caps, and displayed in the temple yard. Some modern services have come under criticism for allegedly abusing the Japanese belief that the spirits of the dead retaliate for their mistreatment.

Christianity

Christian anti-abortion activists plant sign that reads, "God is pro-life".

Many early Christian writers condemned abortion.

The Didache, which most scholars consider to be written in the latter 1st century A.D., comments on the commandment, "you shall do nothing to any man that you would not wish to be done to yourself," by saying:

... Commit no murder, adultery, sodomy, fornication, or theft. Practise no magic, sorcery, abortion, or infanticide. ...

In the 2nd century, Athenagoras defended Christianity from accusations of practicing human sacrifice by writing in Legatio 35:

...What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God’s care [and then kill it]… But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it...

By the 3rd century, abortion was commonly listed among the crimes of men, and there are no extant or referenced texts attesting to any exceptions that would make abortion permissible. In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Christians believe that there is one principle of life from embryo to adulthood (as opposed to two, as assumed in Roman law). In the same century, John Chrysostom denounced married men who encouraged their prostitutes to get abortions, saying,

You do not let a harlot remain only a harlot, but make her a murderess as well.

Early Christians lived under a Roman legal code that permitted both abortion and infanticide. Given the generally ineffective or dangerous methods of abortion available at the time, unwanted children were sometimes carried to term by Roman women, and abandoned to die of exposure. Unlike infanticide, to which the early Christians reacted with intervention and contrary doctrine, some believe that it is less certain how the earliest Christians regarded abortion, though all the extant texts imply opposition to abortion. Despite the explicit condemnation of abortion and infanticide (separately mentioned in Didache), some argue that writings against infanticide are sometimes mistaken for anti-abortion teaching. Others believe that these works provide evidence that early Christians saw no difference in principle between abortion and infanticide. The four gospels offer no statements about abortion as such, and offer no new prohibitions.

The Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion in any passage, and consequently passages that relate to pregnancy are often the result of debate among Christians. Exodus 21:22-23 is interpreted under Christian tradition as an unequivocal assertion that the child formed in the womb is a human being, because the Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint) translates in such a way as to distinctly state that a life is to be taken in the extreme case of a life lost (whereas the Hebrew only explicitly mentions a monetary compensation, if a premature birth is caused by unintentional violence — thus the Jewish view of the issue). The implication is that the fetus can be recognized for what it is, so that damage to it may be assessed. Speculations arose then, concerning whether the child should only be considered a human being after it has been "formed," which led to a diversity of views on the matter. In Deuteronomy 32:23-26, God describes how he will commit genocide against a specific nation. Persons of all ages and both sexes, from infants to old people, will be destroyed. Presumably, fetuses would also be killed during the genocide. But they are not considered sufficiently important to be mentioned. In 2 Kings 15:16, King Menahem rips open all of the pregnant women of Tipsah because they refuse to open the gates of the city; all of the women and fetuses likely died as a result. In Hosea 13:15-16, God claims he will have no mercy upon the people of Samaria because they changed their religious belief, and promises to rip open all of the pregnant women so as to destroy any fetuses, despite the fact that they would not have been involved in the selection of a new religion.

Such passages of the Bible are not taken in a proof-text manner by Christian tradition (that is, they are applicable to the question, although they do not mention abortion), but as illustrations of a basic ethical principle of the created order — a unity of instruction, or "world-view." And this provides for a syllogism, which forms the basis of the modern Christian pro-life movement. Scripture condemns the shedding of innocent human blood. The biblical insight into the order of things is that man is distinct from, and above an animal; and man is uniquely subject to God, whereas animals are given to man; and an unborn child is human and known to God. Therefore, even an unborn child is protected by God, as made in the image of God because it is human (an issue distinct from all speculations of when life begins).

Further, many Christians hold that God sanctifies every aspect of human life starting from conception. One example of this is Jesus being equally divine and human from conception, therefore showing humanity the very sacredness in each developmental stage of gestation. Jesus, according to Christian teaching, did not become divine or human at some later date but was so from the very moment of conception. Jesus' mother, Mary, is also used to refute some arguments that women may use to have an abortion: Mary was young, poor, Joseph considered leaving her, and they lived in a time of great oppression. Despite this, Mary had the baby.

For some, the view that life begins at conception is unresolved. In their view, ancient ethical reasoning is not given the same weight in all Christian traditions, with the result that old issues are revisited, as it were, for the first time. Secondly, they hold that modern science has provided a window to an embryo's beginnings at a microscopic level unenvisioned by tradition; so that, the more traditional view, which used life's beginning at quickening (when the embryo first began to move) as the starting point for reasoning, is not always perfectly applicable to a life beginning at conception. For example about 10% of all pregnancies end by natural miscarriage - in most cases earlier than pregnancy is detectable without modern technology. In their view, the ethical interest in these miscarriages, as reflected in laws for example, has never been on the same scale as interest in the unexplained death of a born person; all the more the case, if the expelled fetus cannot be seen without special equipment.

Others counter that the personhood of a fetus is not disproven by the fact that a significant percentage of fetuses die in utero, any more than a child is shown not to be a person by the fact that, absent modern medicine, a significant percentage of already born children die before reaching adulthood. Besides, the traditional view that personhood begins at quickening, rather than at conception, is a contrast between ancient technology and modern technology for recognizing a human child; consequently, the comparison does not indicate that the traditional opposition to abortion would have been different if informed by modern technology, and rather, has tended to solidify the conclusion that life begins at conception.

Roman Catholicism

Christian writers from the first-century author of the Didache, to the late Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae, to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae ("The Gospel of Life") have maintained that Christian scripture and tradition forbids abortion. Although the Roman Catholic Church has always considered abortion a grave offense, it has at times punished the offense differently depending on the stage of pregnancy in which the abortion was performed. For example, under Pope Gregory XIV excommunication was prescribed only for those aborting a "quickened" child. [5] "Quickened" refers to the stage of pregnancy in which the child can first be felt to move. Excommunication is a formal recognition of the reality that a person is no longer in communion with the Roman Catholic Church's teachings, and is no longer eligible to receive the sacraments. The person excommunicated can contritely confess the sin (material cooperation in an abortion) to his or her bishop and be received back into the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church today firmly holds that "the first right of the human person is his life" and that life is assumed to begin at fertilization. The equality of all human life is fundamental and complete, any discrimination is evil. Therefore, even when a woman's life appears jeopardized, choosing her life over her child's is no less discrimination between two lives - and therefore morally unacceptable. However, the Roman Catholic Church does make a clear distinction between direct abortion and indirect abortion. Direct abortion as a means or an end is always viewed as a moral evil. Indirect abortion occurs when treatment used to save the life of the mother has the secondary side effect of killing the unborn child. An example of indirect abortion is seen in cases of ectopic pregnancy where the fallopian tube would be removed with the unborn intact, saving the life of the woman, but resulting in the indirect death of the unborn. The Roman Catholic Church only recognizes very rare cases where indirect abortion is permissible and views the vast majority abortive procedures to be the result of procuring a direct abortion. [6] [7]

Catholics who procure or participate in an abortion suffer ipso facto latae sententiae (automatic, literally by that very fact the sentence is incurred) excommunication under Canon law, provided that the person knows of the penalty at the time the abortion occurs. The Roman Catholic Church also considers the destruction of any embryo to be equivalent to abortion. The following practices are considered immoral because they are likely to involve the destruction of an embryo: any birth control method that potentially may prevent implanation (IUDs, Emergency contraception, Hormonal contraception, i.e. "The Pill"); embryonic stem cell research or therapy; and in vitro fertilisation (which almost always involves the discarding of a fertilized embryo and is also considered immoral for other reasons).

In summary, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that direct abortion is always a grave evil. The Second Vatican Council in 1965 referred to abortion as "an unspeakable crime" in the document Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World):

"[F]rom the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."

A conciliar Constitution is the most authoritative expression of Catholic faith that exists because they are only issued with the affirmation of a vast majority of all the bishops in the world in union with the pope. Roman Catholic leaders often explain that modern advancements in scientific and medical knowledge of DNA and pre-natal development have simply affirmed the Roman Catholic Church's understanding of the beginning of human life.

Vatican position on pro-choice politicians

On July 3, 2004 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a six-point memorandum to Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington (representing the United States Council of Bishops), which laid out the Vatican's position on Catholic politicians who consistently promote legal abortion.

According to the memorandum, Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws should be warned by their priest to refrain from taking communion or risk being denied the Eucharist until they change their political views. The memorandum also addresses Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians. The Vatican's position on such individuals is that they also should be denied the Eucharist if abortion was their main criterion for choosing that candidate, but that voting for such a candidate was permissible, if other factors outweighed the politician's position on this one issue.

Pope John Paul II endorsed this memorandum as the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to succeed Pope John Paul II on April 19, 2005, becoming Pope Benedict XVI. On March 13, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI released the long-awaited document on Holy Communion, called Sacramentum Caritatis or the Sacrament of Love. The document reiterated the Pope's earlier positions on abortion and the culture of life.

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox teachings on abortion are generally similar to Roman Catholic ones, stemming from a thousand years of common Church tradition. They agree that life begins at conception, and that abortion (including the use of abortifacient drugs) is the taking of a human life. This view is reflected in their observance of the Feast of the Annunciation, when Jesus was conceived, and also of the feast of the conception of the Virgin Mary and the feast of the conception of John the Forerunner.

The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church states that while abortion can never be seen as morally neutral, in some cases economy can be used:

In case of a direct threat to the life of a mother if her pregnancy continues, especially if she has other children, it is recommended to be lenient in the pastoral practice. The woman who interrupted pregnancy in this situation shall not be excluded from the Eucharistic communion with the Church provided that she has fulfilled the canon of Penance assigned by the priest who takes her confession.

The document also acknowledges that abortions often are a result of poverty and helplessness and that the Church and society should "work out effective measures to protect motherhood."

Protestant

Protestant views on abortion vary considerably. However, the general consensus is that the use of birth control methods is not prohibited, except for "morning after pills" or other forms which are considered abortifacient, where the views are more divergent and are often based on the general view of abortion held by the group or person.

There is no instrument by which a formal definition of doctrine can be declared for all Evangelical and fundamentalist movements and churches. Therefore, the teaching held in general by these groups must be discerned sociologically. Especially in the United States, the view is widely held that abortion is a form of infanticide. The groups are substantially united in the view that "abortion for convenience" (abortion where there is no mortal danger to the woman, or where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest) is always wrong and should be banned. However, there is no consensus within these camps as to whether exceptions should be allowed when the woman's life is in mortal danger, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Some argue that the lives of both woman and child should be given equal consideration, in effect condemning all abortion, including those performed to save the life of the woman. However, others argue for exceptions which favor the life of the woman, perhaps including pregnancies resulting from cases of rape or incest.

Increasingly, in recent elections since the 1970s, many Evangelical and fundamentalist churches have encouraged their congregations to vote based on the pro-life agenda, and preach that it is a religious duty to seek legislation restricting or eliminating access to abortion, and for laws requiring parental consent for minors and more complete disclosure of the risks involved.

The "mainline" Protestant churches continue to be divided over the issue. While generally tending to be reluctantly supportive of legal abortion in limited circumstances, most of the mainline denominations have factions of both the pro-life and the pro-choice movements active within them. As a result, the mainliners are usually not officially, institutionally aligned with either side of the debate. The Southern Baptist Convention is the notable exception, having reversed its prior 1970's position of being reluctantly in favor to its current position in substantial opposition (however, stances issued from the national level are not necessarily reflective of state and local associations or individual Baptist congregations).

Anglicanism

Positions taken by Anglicans across the world are divergent although most would refrain from simplifying the debate into "Pro Choice" or "Pro Life" Camps. The Church of England, for example, shares the general opposition to abortion held by the Catholic Church. As the 1980 statement of the Board for Social Responsibility (BSR) put it: "'In the light of our conviction that the foetus has the right to live and develop as a member of the human family, we see abortion, the termination of that life by the act of man, as a great moral evil. We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever; but the right of the innocent to life admits surely of few exceptions indeed'."

The Episcopal Church in the United States of America has taken a pro-choice stand and has passed legislation at its triannual General Convention that supports woman's right to choose. The ECUSA provides ministry to both men and women suffering from post-abortion stress. The Episcopal Church does "express grave concern about use of partial birth abortion except in extreme situation" (GC '97). The church opposes any government action that limits a woman's right to choose this includes parental notification.

The ECUSA does condemn abortions for sex selection and also condemns violence against abortion clinics. Like most mainline Protestant denominations the Episcopalians allow the use of birth control.

Methodism

The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of unborn human life and condemns abortion as morally wrong except in cases where the well being of the mother's life is threatened. In light of grave circumstances, it believes in the right of the mother to choose whether to have an abortion and is thus often regarded as pro-choice. Nevertheless, many United Methodist clergy and laymen formally align themselves with the pro-life position.

Mormonism

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes a strong position against abortion and hold that abortion is form of killing. Justifications for this stem from Doctrine and Covenants 59:6: "Thou shalt not...kill, nor do anything like unto it."

Several recent church publications contain the following statements: "Counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. If you encourage an abortion in any way, you may be subject to Church discipline."

"Some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."

Hinduism

Hinduism teaches that abortion is a great crime and one of the worst sins. It is one of the six kinds of murder described in Hindu culture. Moreover, abortion thwarts a soul in its progress towards God, like any other act of violence. It teaches that a fetus is a living, conscious person deserving of protection. Hinduism has traditionally taught that a soul is reincarnated and enters the embryo at the time the embryo is conceived. In fact, one of the seven legendary immortals or Chiranjeevin in Hinduism, Ashwatthama, was cursed by Lord Krishna, avatar of Vishnu to immortality and eternal suffering partly for killing the fetus, later born as Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna when he was in his mother's womb. Parakashit was born stillborn but was raised from the dead by Shri Krishna.

However, some Hindus do have sex-selective abortions. They may be advised that a suitable penance, or atonement for the act, is to adopt and raise another child.

Islam

Muslim people generally disapprove of abortion, arguing that the right to terminate life rests with God alone. However, the prohibition against abortion depends from case to case. In the case where the woman's life is threatened by the pregnancy, Muslims jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that "the greater evil [mother's death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion]." In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.

Respect for life

Respect for life and the significance of preserving life is an integral part of the Islamic faith. Thus, both the life of the mother and that of the fetus play an important role in defining Islam's position on abortion.

Muslim scholars differ on when life begins. The medieval scholar Al-Ghazali writes that life occurs "when semen is injected into the womb where it merges with the ovum and becomes predisposed to receive life." 120 days is often seen as the point at which a fetus becomes fully human. This has been described as an angel coming and "breathing life into the fetus." Before this time, the fetus lacks a human soul, and is considered on the same level as plants and animals. Thus Hanafi, Shafi and Zaydi schools of thought reluctantly permit abortion, though they hold that it is still makruh (detested by God) without a good reason. Modern scholars now challenge the period of 120 days, suggesting that the fetus moves long before the mother feels the motion. This has led to the suggestion that abortion may be prohibited before 120 days. Although other scholars prefer to focus on the time of quickening , and others still consider the life of the woman to take precedence over the fetus throughout the pregnancy (although it is universally accepted that the later the term, the graver the sin and harder the abortion is to jusitfy).

On the issue of the life of the mother, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the mother is considered the "original source of life," while the fetus is only "potential" life.

Social stability

Muslim jurists justify their positions on abortion with the argument of maintaining social stability. Some Muslim scholars argue that abortion undermines the family, the basic unit of society. Others are concerned that abortion may in the future become a means of forcibly limiting family sizes. The Chinese one-child policy is particularly cited by such ulema.

Abortion is often seen in the Muslim world as a symptom of morally corrupt sexual behavior. Pregnancy, it is argued, provides a constraint on sexual activity. Maududi, a 20th century scholar argued that abortion, which terminates the fear of pregnancy, could lead to "illegitimate sex relations on a scale unprecedented in the history of our society."

Some Muslim scholars also argue in favor of abortion in early pregnancy if the newborn might be sick in some way that would make its care exceptionally difficult for the parents (eg. deformities, mental retardation, etc). Some scholars argue that abortion is allowed for important reasons on the first 40 days. Sheikh Nasr Farid Wasil extends this period to 120 days. Ikrima Sabri, the Grand Mufti of Palestine, gave a ruling that Muslim women raped by Serb men during the Kosovo War could take abortifacient medicine.

Judaism

In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. In the modern period, moreover, Jewish thinking on abortion has responded both to liberal understandings of personal autonomy as well as Christian opposition to abortion. Generally speaking, traditionalist Jews firmly oppose abortion, with few health-related exceptions, and liberal Jews tend to allow greater latitude for abortion.

Abortion in the Jewish Bible

In Biblical literature, as interpreted in the Jewish tradition, there is no unambiguous position on abortion. On the one hand, the Bible is understood to exalt the preservation of human life as a paramount value. Homicide is denounced and forbidden, except in cases of rescue and self-defense (see rodef). On the other hand, the Biblical texts say little about the status or treatment of the embryo. Indeed, only one crucial Biblical law establishes a rule about the killing of an embryo. Specifically, Exodus 21:22-23 states:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage (ason) ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage (ason) ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Under Jewish Biblical exegesis, this law forbids the killing of the embryo, but such killing is not deemed murder. Instead, the feticide is a form of damages subject to monetary compensation. Conversely, the killing of the mother -- the other damage (ason) -- could be a capital offense, murder. The sole act of deliberate aggression is the aforementioned quarrel. Overtly, then, the Biblical anecdote is not one of murder. (In Hellenistic Judaism, the verse from Exodus may have been interpreted differently. Notably, Philo apparently equates the killing of the embryo with murder, though Philo's position is somewhat ambivalent about the status of the fetus. Furthermore, the Septuagint translates the word ason, in the aforementioned verse, as a form. By reading the verse differently, the Septuagint applies the "life for life" clause to the death of the embryo, and thereby gave birth to the different road taken by early Christian exegetes.)

Early rabbinic Judaism

In mainstream rabbinic Judaism, the Biblical verse is one of several key texts that substantiate the later rabbinic prohibition on abortion, albeit not as murder. Owing partly to this verse, rabbinic law or halakhah sanctions abortion under some circumstances, namely for medical reason. In principle, Judaism does not regard the fetus as a full human being. While deliberately killing a day old baby is murder, according to the Mishnah, a fetus is not covered by this strict homicide rule. In reading of Biblical homicide laws, rabbinic sages argue that homicide concerns an animate human being (nefesh adam from Lev. 24:17) alone, not an embryo... because the embryo is not a person (lav nefesh hu).

A core text in rabbinic law crystallizes the status of the fetus. The Mishna explicitly indicates that one must abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the woman.

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another.

According to the text this can be done until the point of yatza rubo (יָצָא רֻבּוֹ), that "the greater part has proceeded forth". Whether this refers to the elapsing of half of the gestation period (4 1/2 months) or literally to the emergence of the majority of the baby during childbirth is disputed by commentators.

In Talmudic law, an embryo is not deemed a fully viable person (bar kayyama), but rather a being of "doubtful viability" (Niddah 44b). Hence, for instance, Jewish mourning rites do not apply to an unborn child. The status of the embryo is also indicated by its treatment as "an appendage of its mother" (ubar yerekh 'imo Hullin 58a) for such matters as ownership, maternal conversion and purity law. In even more evocative language, the Talmud states in a passage on priestly rules that the fetus "is considered to be mere water" until its 40th day.

Later authorities have differed as to how far one might go in defining the peril to the woman in order to justify abortion, and at what stage of gestation a fetus is considered having a soul, at which point one life cannot take precedence over another. Abortion, when necessary, must take place before the first 40 days, when the fetus is referred to as "mere water."

Medieval and pre-Modern Judaism

After the Talmudic period, Jewish views on abortion become more refined, and diverse, as rabbinic literature expanded and Jewish philosophy developed. Maimonides, notably, justified the prohibition on abortion not because the fetus is less than a nefesh (human being), as the Talmud held, but rather through the principle of the rodef or pursuer. Schiff argues that the Maimonidean view is "unprecedented" and "without doubt, this hitherto unexpressed insight had dramatic potential ramifications for the parameters of permissible abortion."

Another reason to prohibit abortion is found in the Talmudic commentaries known as the Tosafot. The Tosafot argued that abortion is forbidden to Jews because it is forbidden to non-Jews under the Noahide laws. "A gentile is culpable for the death of a fetus, while a Jew is forbidden to cause its death but is not culpable." Here the Tosafot follow the logic that Jews are not permitted actions that are forbidden to gentiles, though the (theoretical) punishment for violations would apply only to gentiles. Relying on such reciprocal logic, the Tosafot also hold that, since Jews are permitted therapeutic abortions for the sake of maternal life, then Noahide law likewise allows non-Jews to undergo therapeutic abortion. Given this near parity, rabbinic law prohibits Jews from assisting gentiles with forbidden abortions, for which the gentiles would be culpable of murder. Viewing Noahide law as a universalizing ethics, Sinclair states: "it is evident that the halakhah in the area of foeticide is shaped by a combination of legal doctrine and moral principle." However, the Tosafot text that applies Noahide law to forbid abortion does not go unchallenged. As Feldman points out (p.262), another contradictory Tosafot (Niddah 44b) apparently permits foeticide.

Scholars of Talmudic and Medieval rabbinic law draw a sharp contrast between the theologies behind Jewish and Catholic opposition to abortion. After favorably reviewing Christian opposition to abortion, Immanuel Jakobovits writes in Jewish Medical Ethics: "In Jewish law, the right to destroy a human fruit before birth is entirely unrelated to theological considerations. Neither the question of the entry of the soul before birth nor the claim to salvation after death have any practical bearing on the subject." Although halakhic regulations works strenuously to protect the unborn child, he says that "none of these regulations necessarily prove that the foetus enjoys human inviolability." In contrast to the neo-Platonic and Christian approach, moreover, Talmudic thought does not "make any legal distinction between formed and unformed foetuses." Feldman, likewise, is emphatically comparative, saying: "... while Christianity's position on abortion has raised the moral level of western civilization in this regard and has succeeded in sensitizing humanity to a greater reverence for life, it is obviously comprised, at the same time, of theological postulates which the Jewish community can not share." Feldman also points out that Talmudic debate over whether the soul achieves immortality upon conception, or at a far later stage, has little bearing halakhic protections for the fetus because, absent a doctrine of original sin, "abortion would not interfere with the immortal rights or destiny of the foetus."

In the standard code of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, therapeutic abortion is permitted. A key commentator, R. Joshua Falk, explains that abortion does not trade off one life for another life because the embryo is "not a person" prior to birth. An ordinary abortion is a violation of civil or monetary law alone, not criminal law, as emphasized by R. Ezekiel Landau among others

In a key responsum, R. Yair Bachrach is asked whether to approve an abortion for a mother with an illegitimate embryo. R. Bachrach distinguishes early stage from later stage abortions. His reasoning is based on a Talmudic commentary to the effect that Sabbath laws may be violated for a fetus, but only for a later-stage embryo. Several authorities say that Jewish law is less strict for terminating embryos before 40 days. He also concludes that the embryo may be treated as a pursuer rodef, as Maimonides as opined, though simultaneously he upholds Rashi's view of the reduced status of the fetus. Bachrach then offers a novel rationale for denying the requested abortion. He argues the abortion, like certain forms of contraception, frustrates the mitzvah of reproduction and destroys the "seed" needed to be "fruitful and multiply."

With the emergence of modern Jewish identity in the late 18th century, Jewish views on abortion have bifurcated along movement lines, especially between Orthodox Judaism and its more liberal counter-parts. By the 20th century, liberal-minded Jews were among those most active in the pro-choice movement. These reproductive rights activists included Betty Friedan, Bernard Nathanson. In the U.S., a few politically-conservative Republican Jews also have been pro-choice, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A few Jewish groups concentrate on abortion issues, both pro-life and pro-choice.

Orthodox Judaism

Due to the diversity within Orthodox Judaism, there are a range of halakhic opinions about abortion, though they generally prohibit abortion except in quite limited circumstances. In particular, abortion would be mandatory to save the woman's life. In 2001, Jewish ethicist Daniel Eisenberg summarized the typical exceptions permitted by some authorities: "Judaism recognizes psychiatric as well as physical factors in evaluating the potential threat that the fetus poses to the mother. However, the danger posed by the fetus (whether physical or emotional) must be both probable and substantial to justify abortion. The degree of mental illness which must be present to justify termination of a pregnancy is not well established and therefore criteria for permitting abortion in such instances remain controversial."

Orthodox law decisors (poskim) generally forbid abortion to prevent the birth of a severely defective fetus.

Nonetheless, on scattered occasions, rabbinic authorities have issued more lenient rulings on abortion. Notably, a recent rabbinical authority holds the minority view that a child with known Tay-Sachs disease may be aborted due to its dismal prognosis. As Eisenberg notes, "Rabbi (Eliezer) Waldenberg allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation."

Among Orthodox Jews, abortion has re-emerged as a controversial topic due to the debate over stem cell research. In general, Orthodox Jewish medical ethics tends to favor medical research. Some interest has been articulated to support stem cell research and, in so doing, demonstrate Jewish law's leniency toward abortion of "pre-embryo" cells. Thus, Eisenberg emphasizes that "Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg (author of the Responsa Seridei Aish), clearly held that there is no prohibition of abortion before forty days according to Rabbi Trani's opinion since there is no 'limb' to injure prior to formation of a recognizable fetus at forty days. Rabbi Weinberg himself at first permitted abortion prior to forty days, but later reconsidered his position." In writings on stem cell research, Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler has supported the use of pre-embryonic cells, whereas Rabbi J. David Bleich has opposed destruction of stem cells.

Conservative Judaism

The Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards takes the view that an abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the woman severe physical or psychological harm, or when the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective. The fetus is a life in the process of development, and the decision to abort should never be taken lightly. Thus, the Conservative position is in line with some of the Acharonim who permit an abortion in case of acute potential emotional and psychological harm.

Before reaching her final decision, Conservative Judaism holds that the woman should consult with the biological father, other members of her family, her physician, her Rabbi and any other person who can help her in assessing the many grave legal and moral issues involved.

Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism permits abortion, not only when the woman's life is at stake, but also when a pregnancy is "a result of rape or incest; when through genetic testing, it is determined that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability, and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them," and for several other reasons.[8]. More generally, the "Reform perspective on abortion can be described as follows: Abortion is an extremely difficult choice faced by a woman. In all circumstances, it should be her decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, backed up by those whom she trusts (physician, therapist, partner, etc.). This decision should not be taken lightly (abortion should never be used for birth control purposes) and can have life-long ramifications. However, any decision should be left up to the woman within whose body the fetus is growing."[9]

Sikhism

Although the Sikh code of conduct does not deal directly with abortion (or indeed many other bioethical issues), it is generally forbidden in Sikhism because it interferes in the creative work of God. In Sikhism, it is accepted that life begins at conception (see page 74 of the Guru Granth Sahib). Conception having taken place, it would be a sin to destroy (abort) life.

Despite this theoretical viewpoint, abortion is not uncommon among the Sikh community in India, and there is concern that the practice of aborting female embryos because of a cultural preference for sons is growing.

See also

• Abortion
• Abortion debate
• Abortion Law
• Religious views on birth control
• List of religions

References

• Brockopp, Jonathan E. (2003). Islamic Ethics of Life. Columbia: University of South California Press. ISBN 1-57003-471-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Jewish sources

• Bleich, J. David. "Abortion in halakhic literature" in Contemporary halakhic problems. KTAV, 1977
• Eisenberg, Daniel, M.D. "Stem Cell Research in Jewish Law" 2001. Published at Jlaw.com with note that "This article was reviewed for halachic accuracy by Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia."
• David Feldman. 1974. Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law. New York: Schocken Books.
• Jakobovits, Immanuel. 1959. Jewish Medical Ethics. New York: Bloch Publishing.
• Mackler, Aaron L., ed. 2000. Life & Death Responsibilities in Jewish Biomedical Ethics. JTS.
• Rosner, Fred. 1986. Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics. New York: Yeshiva University Press.
• Schiff, Daniel. Abortion in Judaism. 2002. Cambridge University Press.
• Sinclair, Daniel. Jewish biomedical law. Oxford

External links

• the BBC's Ethics:Abortion page

Religious organizations which oppose abortion

• Baptists for Life
• CEC For Life: International Communion of Charismatic Epsicopal Church
• Embryo USA (Muslims for Life)
• Evangelicals for Social Action
• Hindu Perspective for Life
• Jews for Life
• Libertarians for Life
• Lutherans for Life
• National Black Catholic Apostolate for Life
• National Organization of Epsicopals for Life
• National Pro-Life Religious Council
• Orthodox Christians for Life
• Pagans for Life
• Presbyterians for Life
• Priests for Life
• The Rosicrucian Fellowship
• The Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality
• US Catholic Bishops ProLife
• Abort73
• Life Dynamics
• Operation Rescue
• ProLife.com
• Side-Walk Counseling
• Voices Heard
• Option Line

Religious articles opposing abortion

• How We Respect Life is the Over-Riding Moral Issue by Rev. Jessie Jackson (1977)
• Abortion: The Left has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life by Mary Meehan (1980)
• What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? by Jim Rudd of Covenant News
• What Early Christians Believed About Abortion by The Interactive Bible
• Abortion: Does it Really Matter? by James Sterling of Grace-Centered Magazine
• Christian Perspectives on Abortion by the Christian Evidence Society

Religious groups supporting legal abortion

Some religious groups support legal abortion. However, this support is often tempered by conditions, such as that abortion should not be used as a method of birth control, for sex selection, for population control, or to provide fetal tissue for transplantation.

Some organizations support legal abortion only in limited situations such as rape, incest, or cases in which continued pregnancy may jeopardize the life or health (physical or mental) of the woman. Furthermore, these religious groups all oppose forced abortion.

Here is a partial list of religious groups that support legal abortion.

• American Ethical Union
• American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee
• American Humanist Association
• American Jewish Committee
• Catholics for a Free Choice
• Central Conference of American Rabbis
• Community of Christ
• Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
• Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
• Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• Moravian Church in America-Northern Province
• Na'Amat USA
• National Council of Jewish Women
• North American Federation of Temple Youth
• Presbyterian Church (USA)
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
• Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice of Massachusetts
• Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom
• Summary of Sacred Choices
• The Union for Reform Judaism
• The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
• United Church of Christ
• Unitarian Universalist Association
• Women of Reform Judaism
• Women's American ORT
• United Methodist Church