Judaism and Abortion
Within the Jewish there are three main groups - Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform and Reconstructionist. All of these groups could be described as supporting abortion, however, this is not to say that they support abortion on demand or for what may be considered reasons of convenience.

In the Jewish tradition as in other religions, the debate surrounds when the embryo or foetus should be considered a human person of value to be protected from harm. The Jewish book, the Talmud gives the foetus more value and importance as he/she develops in the womb, however the foetus is not considered to be a human person until he/she emerges from his/her mother's body. During the first 40 days of pregnancy the embryo is described as "water" and abortion is generally allowed in this stage. From 40 days until the end of the first trimester the embryo/foetus is considered an organ of the mother's body and so abortion law is more restrictive. After the first trimester the foetus is seen as a potential life and therefore abortion is only approved in certain circumstances. ("What Judaism Says About Abortion", Alan Luxenberg, Forward, 11 May 2001)

For example:

"Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:

• One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
• An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
• Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
• Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
• Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus [has a genetic disability] or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be ... disabled ... it would still be formed in the image of the creator.
• An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
• Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried." ("When does human personhood begin? Belief 4: Jewish Beliefs", www.religioustolerance.org)

Within Jerusalem however a new group has emerged called Efrat. Efrat opposes abortion and sees the saving of Jewish babies from abortion as their mission. One of their representatives is Dr Bernard Nathanson the Jewish gynaecologist and former abortionist whose story is told in The Silent Scream. Efrat provide practical support to women as an alternative to abortion. Many Jewish groups would claim that Judaism itself is pro-abortion, however Efrat is pro-life and proclaims as its message "choose life", as in the Torah:
"I am now giving you the choice between life and death, between God's blessing and God's curse, and I call heaven and earth to witness the choice that you make. Choose life". Deuteronomy 30:19
("MOMMY, LET ME LIVE!"- Judaism Confronts Abortion, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Feminism and Nonviolence Studies, Fall 1998)

Christianity and Abortion
There are of course many schools of thought within Christianity as within other religions. Nonetheless the Christian Church is generally opposed to abortion.

The Gospel of St Luke describes the conception of Jesus in the phrase addressed to Mary: "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (1:35). Immediately after this, Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant, bearing John the Baptist. When she heard Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy". (Luke,1:42-44)

This recognition of Jesus’ presence in the earliest stages of Mary’s pregnancy challenges any suggestion that the early Christian Church might have condoned early abortion.

Probably the earliest written source from the early church other than the New Testament is The Didache or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. At one time this was thought to date from around 150AD but some now think it could be of the same time as St Matthew’s Gospel. It states: "You shall not kill the child in the womb or murder a new-born infant". Clement of Alexandria said in 195 AD: "women who resort to some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, along with it, all human kindness" (S.P.Wood,Clement of Alexandria: The Educator (Fathers of the Church, Vol .23) Washington (1984), p. 169).

St Basil, one of the early Church Fathers, and a Doctor of the Church, who died in 379 AD, condemned abortion at any stage of pregnancy saying: "Any hair-splitting distinction as to whether the foetus was formed or unformed is inadmissible", and he declared that the reason abortion is so serious a misdeed is that not only is the mother’s life endangered, but the life of the developing child is destroyed.

In Catholic teaching where the life of the child is ended in order to save the life of the mother this is not in fact considered to be abortion. This is based on the doctrine of double effect as illustrated below;

"This doctrine applies where an action has two effects, one good and one bad. The termination of a pregnancy to save the life of a mother is an example. The killing of the unborn (the bad effect) results in the survival of the mother (the good effect).

Firstly, the purpose desired must necessitate the means adopted. Thus if another means could be used to achieve the good effect without involving the bad effect it must be used. Secondly, the good effect must outweigh the bad effect. Thirdly, to satisfy the moral principle that the end never justifies the means, the means chosen must lead indirectly and not directly to the evil effect. In saving the mother the means must only indirectly involve the life of the unborn (the unborn must not be targeted).

The removal of the cancerous womb of a pregnant woman would satisfy this criterion because the womb is being directly removed and the abortion of the unborn is an indirect consequence. In an ectopic pregnancy sited in the fallopian tube the tube may be removed surgically to avoid dangerous complications but the death of the unborn is a side-effect and therefore an indirect abortion.

It should be noted that the use of the direct/indirect distinction implies that there are permissible indirect abortions." (The Irish Times, The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution Fifth Progress Report, 15 November 2000).

This teaching therefore requires a ban only on direct abortion, rather than indirect abortion such as in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. Many other Christian groups would also subscribe to this thinking.

Islam and Abortion
In Islam life is considered to be Islam a sacred gift from God.
The Holy Quran says: "Say: Come, I will rehearse what God has really prohibited you from: Join nothing as equal with Him; be good to your parents, kill not your children on a plea of poverty; We provide sustenance for you and for them; approach not shameful deeds, whether open or secret; take not life, which God has made sacred, except by a way of justice and law (Chapter 6, Verse 151). In another verse: "Kill not your children for fear of want; it is We who provide sustenance for them as well as for you; for verily killing them is a great sin.
(Chapter 17, Verse 31). (Dr Arafat El Ashi www.crescentlife.com)

These two verses are often used to illustrate that Islam forbids abortion as although abortion is not explicitly mentioned, it is taken from the view that the killing of children is a grave crime. There may therefore be some difference of opinion about when the embryo or foetus can be considered a child.

According to the teaching of the Prophet Mohammed the soul enters the body of the foetus after 120 days, in the fifth month of pregnancy. Islamic scholars differ in their opinions about whether abortion should be allowed before 120 days. Early theologians allowed abortion in the first 40 days and today in North and Black Africa (the Maliki school) and in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (the Hanbali school) this restriction is maintained. However in Turkey, the Middle East and Central Asia (the Hanafi school) and in Southeast Asia, Southern Arabia and parts of East Africa (the Shafi school) abortion is permitted up to 120 days. (www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/food/abortion.html)

Abortion is permitted under Islamic law in order to save the life of the mother. However,

1) Under normal health conditions, and particularly when the foetus is developed enough (that specialists consider it a live body), abortion amounts to deliberate killing and therefore, not allowed.
2) Abortion or even prevention of conception for fear of economic hardships, is the negation of the basic article of Islamic faith that God is sole Provider and Sustainer of every living soul. That being the reason, the act will be un-Islamic.
3 ) Seeking abortion for no "good" reason at all, and saying that the "mother" or "father" just does not want that baby - is inhuman and cruel thinking. No sane person would allow that.
4 ) If even the conception is the result of extra-marital union or forced rape, abortion is not allowed, because the (innocent) baby to be, has the right to life, that can not be denied. The biological parents - both or either one - or else the society/state is responsible to take care of such "un-wanted" or illegal births. (Jamaat-E-Islami Pakistan, Islam and Abortion www.jamaat.org/qa/abort.html)

Moral principles
It is often alleged that by maintaining laws against abortion Christians are imposing their moral principles on others.

It is not inherently insensitive or judgmental to affirm basic moral principles. Without moral principles no human society can serve its members and preserve justice. Those who seek to set principles aside to allow for abortion fail to show sensitivity to the unborn child and the pressures on expectant mothers, and exercise a life-and-death judgement over the unborn. Abortion imposes a subjective morality on society.

Furthermore, the moral principles at stake are not only recognised by Christians, but are held by people of all creeds and none. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" (preamble, clause 1). Article 3 of the Universal Declaration states explicitly that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Furthermore, Article 2 states that these rights apply "without distinction of any kind, such as …religion". The Universal Declaration was developed in respect of children in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which states "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, deserves special care and safeguards, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". To oppose abortion in not to impose a sectarian prejudice, but to recognise a universally agreed human right.

Human Rights: inherited or earned?

Defining "Personhood" to Exclude the Unborn Child.
Some pro-abortionists admit that a new, distinct and recognisably human life begins at conception, but deny protection to such individuals.
"The foetus can be killed because it isn’t a person"
This use of the term "person" to deny certain people their fundamental rights is not new. In 1856 the US Supreme Court decided that black people were not "persons" in the eyes of the American Constitution (The "Dred Scott decision"), and could be denied any constitutional protection. It has been pointed out that the Court had all the evidence that black people were fully human, just as we now have all the evidence that unborn children are fully human.

"The foetus only gradually becomes a human being (‘gradualism’)"
It is understandable that the ancients, like Aristotle, might have thought this, since the evidence they had was very poor. We now know that life in the womb begins when the sperm fertilises the egg and that this new life is distinctly human and unique from the outset (with his/her complete genetic make-up). We cannot base our treatment of the embryo today on assumptions we now know to be incorrect.

There are several similar arguments, which are used to deny human rights to the unborn along these lines:
"The soul doesn’t enter the body until sometime after conception".
Both God’s law and human laws have always protected human life without referring to or defining the soul. As we cannot see or measure the human soul, it is impossible to establish a legal definition of when we acquire it. No serious suggestion has been made for a law based on "ensoulment". The idea of ensoulment is only used to try to counter the unassailable argument that human life should be protected from its biological beginning – at conception.

In each case, these arguments attempt to exclude unborn children from our concern and from the protection of the law.

Claims that the unborn child lacks specific faculties are constantly being challenged by advancing knowledge of the capacity of the baby in the womb. Furthermore this view determines the worth of a human being in terms of what he or she can do, or feel, or think – not in terms of who he or she is – our brother or sister, a fellow citizen. It challenges our notions of human solidarity and community, especially with the weak and dependent, the unborn, the handicapped and the elderly, and ultimately threatens the whole fabric of society.

Our compassion for expectant mothers and unborn children should motivate us to fight for the rights of all to full protection under the law. If we fail to use the structures of our democracy to preserve and enhance all our rights we will find those safeguards damaged and ultimately lost.

SPUC Scotland Paper 7
The Case Against Abortion
Revised June 2005

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. All Rights Reserved. Tel: 0141 221 2094. E-mail: Web Design & Development by CSS Web Design