(ו) הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ:
(6) If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another.
§ Rav Huna says: If a minor was pursuing another person in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved with the pursuer’s life. That is to say, one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, and one does not say that since the minor lacks halakhic competence, he is not subject to punishment. The Gemara explains: Rav Huna maintains that a pursuer, in general, does not require forewarning, and there is no difference with regard to this matter between an adult and a minor. The essence of the matter is rescuing the pursued party from death, and therefore the pursuer’s liability to receive the death penalty is irrelevant. Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If a woman was giving birth and her life was being endangered by the fetus, the life of the fetus may be sacrificed in order to save the mother. But once his head has emerged during the birthing process, he may not be harmed in order to save the mother, because one life may not be pushed aside to save another life. If one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, why is this so? The fetus is a pursuer who is endangering his mother’s life. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is different there, with regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the ruling of Rav Huna, who said that a pursuer does not require a forewarning: If a pursuer was pursuing another person in order to kill him, a third party says to the pursuer: See that he whom you are pursuing to kill is a Jew, and a loyal member of the covenant, and the Torah stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The Torah stated: Save the blood of this person who is being pursued with the blood of that person who is pursuing him. The fact that there is no indication here that the pursuer must say that he heard the forewarning suggests that forewarning is not required, as stated by Rav Huna.
שו"ת מהרי"ט חלק א סימן צט
ומדפריך פשיטא משמע דמחמת איבוד
נפשות אין נדנוד כלל... הילכך בישראלית מפני צורך אמו נראה שמותר להתעסק עמהם שתפילנה כיון דרפואת אמו היא
Maharit of Responsa 99:1
And from the fact that the Gemara (Arakhin 7a) says, “It is obvious!” [that we can abort the fetus of the woman who is condemned], it implies that as far as taking a [fetal] life is concerned, there is not the slightest issue of concern...
Therefore, regarding a Jewish woman, in a case of the mother’s need, it would appear that it is permissible to assist them to have an abortion, since it is for the sake of the mother’s health.
שו"ת שאילת יעבץ חלק א סימן מג
וגם בעובר
כשר הי' צד להקל לצורך גדול. כל כמה
דלא עקר. אפי' אינו משום פקוח נפש
אמו. אלא להציל לה מרעתו. שגורם
לה כאב גדול וצ"ע.
26. Rabbi Jacob Emden, Responsa Shelat Yavetz, I 43
Rabbi Jacob ben Tzvi Emden was born in 1697 and died in 1776, in
Germany.
Thus even for a “kosher”
fetus (not the result of adultery) there would be reason to be
lenient for a great need, until the point when it has “become
uprooted” (childbirth has begun). Even when the mother’s life is
not at risk, but it is just to save the fetus from the evil that will
befall it, that it will cause significant pain to the mother. And this
requires further investigation.
שו"ת אגרות משה חושן משפט ב:סט
אסרו"ח סוכות תשל"ז....
הנה בדבר הריגת עובר במעי אמו בישראל....
וברמב"ם פ"א מהלכות רוצח ה"ט מפורש עוד יותר דהריגת עובר הוא רציחה ממש...ולכן לדינא... איכא איסור רציחה מלא תרצח גם על עובר ורק שפטור ההורגו ממיתה, ...ומטעם זה הוריתי שאף שהרופאים אומרים שיש חשש שמא תמות האם כשלא יהרגו את העובר, אף שלענין חלול שבת וכל האיסורין היו מחללין והיו עוברין במדת חשש שאמרו
דהא גם בשביל ספק קטן וס"ס מחללין, מ"מ להרוג את העובר יהיה אסור עד שתהיה האומדנא להרופאים גדולה קרוב לודאי שתמות האם.... וגם לענין אונס אם רשאי הרופא לעבור ולא ליהרג... שא"כ יש לו להיות בדין יהרג ואל יעבור...ולכן צ"ע לדינא אם איכא בזה דיהרג ולא יעבור או לא... כתבתי כל זה לענין הפרצה הגדולה בעולם שהמלכיות דהרבה מדינות התירו להרוג עוברים ובתוכם גם ראשי המדינה במדינת
ישראל וכבר נהרגו עוברים לאין מספר
שבזה"ז הא עוד יש צורך לעשות סיג לתורה, וכ"ש שלא לעשות קולות באיסור רציחה החמור ביותר, שלכן נשתוממתי בראותי תשובה מחכם אחד בא"י הנכתב למנהל ביה"ח שערי צדק ונדפס בחוברת אסיא י"ג המתיר הולדות שע"י בחינות הרופאים כשהוא עובר יותר מג"ח שהעובר הוא במחלת תיי-סקס להפילו, ומצד זה הקדים שעצם הריגת העוברים הוא להרבה פוסקים רק מדרבנן...
וברור ופשוט כדכתבתי הלכה הברורה ע"פ רבותינו הראשונים המפרשים והפוסקים ממש שאסור בדין רציחה ממש כל עובר בין כשר בין ממזר בין סתם עוברים ובין הידועים לחולי תיי - סקס שכולן אסורין מדינא ממש, ואין לטעות ולסמוך על תשובת חכם זה ושרי ליה מריה בזה הכו"ח לכבוד התורה ודין האמת.
29. Iggrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, 2:69
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, 1895-1986, was the leading halachic
authority of American Jewry.
Day after Sukkot. 1976.
Regarding Killing a fetus...
And in Maimonides it is even more explicit that killing a fetus is actual murder...
Therefore, regarding the law, it is prohibited under the
prohibition of “Thou shalt not murder” to abort a fetus, with the single exception that one who kills it is exempt from the death penalty... And because of this I ruled that even if the doctors are saying that there is a possibility that the mother may die if the fetus is not killed – although for desecrating Shabbat and violating other commandments one would do so in such a case, even for a small concern of life – nevertheless, to kill a fetus it would be forbidden until the doctors assess that the likelihood of her death is almost definite... And even if the doctor is being forced by threat of death to perform an abortion, it would appear that he must give up his life rather than do so [although an argument could be made to
the contrary]... Therefore, this ruling requires greater thought, whether one must give up his life rather than perform an abortion...
I have written all this because of the great calamity in the
world that many governments have allowed the killing of
fetuses, among them political leaders in the State of Israel, and countless of fetuses have already been killed, and in these days the greatest need is to make a fence around the Torah, how much more so not to make leniencies regarding the prohibition of murder that is so severe. Thus, I was appalled by the responsa of a learned man in Israel written to the director of Shaarei Tzedek Hospital who permits the abortion of a Tay-Sachs fetus even beyond 3 months. And he ruled such by prefacing that the prohibition was, according to many decisors, only rabbinic... It is clear and simple as I wrote, the law which is made clear by the early rabbis and the decisors of Jew law, that abortion is prohibited as it is considered actual murder, whether the fetus is legitimate or illegitimate,
regular fetuses or those which are suffering from Tay-Sachs.
It is strictly prohibited, and do not err and rely on the
responsum of that learned man...