[Avodah] JP: What is Life?

[Rabbi Alec Goldstein via Avodah]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Chana Luntz <Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
...
> If you understand a fetus as being a limb of the mother, then the medical
> justification for abortion if a woman does not want to go through the risks
> of childbirth becomes almost automatic.  As rabbinic Jews it is hard to see
> how one can, rabbinically, demand that somebody put themselves into a
> situation of high risk of medical intervention or death for a rabbinic
> mitzvah (indeed, according to the Meshech Chochma, that is the reason women
> are exempt from pru u'rvu in the first place -- because the Torah does not
> demand that people put their life on the line for one of its mitzvos -- 
> darchei darchei noam).  It is only if you hold that in fact the fetus is a
> life, that you get into the question of weighing her life against its -- and
> possibly insisting that she go forward with a highly dangerous procedure
> for its sake.
...

Hi Chana,

Thanks for the email.

I am in no way saying that the mother's life should be jeopardized,
either within *halakhah* or public policy. I hope I made that clear. If
not, I repeat it here. My issue was the "abortion on demand" culture,
which does not view abortion as a moral evil.

I do not accept that viewing abortion as *chavalah* means a woman who does
not want to go through the risks of childbirth has a right to an abortion;
unless of course the doctor's say she has a high risk pregnancy. There is
an an *issur* *chavalah*, and you are not even permitted to be *chovel*
yourself. Thank God we have the science to reduce the risks of childbirth.

A human leg is clearly human-like, because it is a human body
part. However a human leg could under no circumstances survive on its
own, so it's not fully human. However a fetus clearly can survive on its
own because one minute it's in utero, and then it's in the world. (The
fact that the infant requires the parents to feed it doesn't mean it's
not human.)

I am not familiar with the British perspective on the debate. However
as you describe it, it seems to be the exact problem I'm describing:
make the concerns of the mother the sole question, and the fetus doesn't
get a vote, so to speak.

I spoke to a friend of mine over Shabbos who says the Rambam his
often understood to say abortion is murder. The point is, we sometimes
disregard the opinions that deny us the wiggle room we desire precisely
because they deny that wiggle room. We must contend with the opinions
of the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, and Rav Moshe to have an intellectually
honest halakhic discussion. But again my point was more philosophical
and societal than halakhic.

You may find it interesting that I've found some pro-choice ethicists
who accept that the fetus is life, but they refer to it as a type of
"justifiable homicide." (See, e.g., Robert P. George, *The Clash of
Orthodoxies* p. 67, quoting such a position, though George himself
opposes abortion.)

As for the *halakhah* of test tube babies - that's way too theoretical for
me. That's territory for a Posek.

Best,
Alec