A Catholic Perspective on the Immorality and Inconsistency of Noahide Abortion Laws: Loopholes, Disparities, and Disrespect for Human Dignity (Code Green)
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com
This article is "Code Green": Murder
A Catholic Perspective on the Immorality and Inconsistency of Noahide Abortion Laws: Loopholes, Disparities, and Disrespect for Human Dignity
From a Catholic perspective, rooted in the teachings of the Church as articulated by the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism (1566), and papal encyclicals such as Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930) and Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (1995), the sanctity of human life from conception is a fundamental principle grounded in the imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–27) and the commandment “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). The Noahide Laws, derived from Genesis 9:1–7 and codified in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a–b) and by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1), are presented as a universal moral code for non-Jews, including a prohibition against murder that ostensibly protects fetal life. However, two documented facts reveal profound moral inconsistencies: first, that a fetus may be aborted up to 40 days without penalty under Noahide Law, and second, that non-Jews are punished for abortion because the fetus is considered property to serve Jews, while Jews face no punishment for aborting their own fetuses. These loopholes and disparities, coupled with the repugnant notion that non-Jewish fetuses exist to serve Jews while Jewish fetuses are subsidiary to adult Jews, demonstrate that Noahide abortion prohibitions are not truly moral but discriminatory and dehumanizing. This essay, from a Catholic perspective, examines these claims, validates the first fact, refutes the Noahide framework’s morality, and condemns its underlying ideology as incompatible with the Gospel’s universal call to life and dignity.
Validation of Fact 1: Abortion Permitted Up to 40 Days
The first fact claims that under Noahide Law, a fetus may be aborted up to 40 days without legal penalty, as supported by the following quote:
This is a far more difficult and complicated subject than most commentaries suggest. Abortion, or feticide, is commonly regarded as "shedding the blood of man in man," and tantamount to "shedding the blood of man by man." So it violates the Rainbow Covenant law against murder. However, up to forty (40) days — not quite six weeks — after conception a human fetus is considered to be "mere water," "mere tissue," or really little more than a hairy egg. It may be destroyed without the imposition of any legal penalty.
Source: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation, p. 194.
Source: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation, p. 194.
Validation: This claim is substantiated by Jewish legal tradition, specifically the Talmud and its interpretations. The Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that a fetus before 40 days is “mere water” (maya b’alma), not yet considered a nefesh (living soul) with full human status. This view is echoed by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach 1:9), who distinguishes early embryonic stages from later ones in murder laws. For Noahides, the prohibition against murder (Sanhedrin 56a) applies to fetuses post-40 days, as they are deemed “man in man,” but not before, allowing abortion without penalty in the first 40 days. Rashi’s commentary on Sanhedrin 57b clarifies that Noahide murder laws align with Jewish fetal status distinctions, supporting Dallen’s assertion. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (“Abortion”) confirms this 40-day threshold in Jewish law, applicable to Noahides unless stricter conditions are imposed. Thus, the claim is valid, revealing a significant loophole in Noahide abortion prohibitions.
Fact 2: Disparate Abortion Rules and Schneerson’s Ideology
The second fact asserts that non-Jews are punished for abortion because the fetus is considered property to serve Jews, while Jews face no punishment for aborting their own fetuses, as articulated by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson:
We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning." This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the "heavens and the earth - are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim."
After some additional cabbalistic explanation the Lubovitcher Rebbe concluded:
Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.
Source: Shahak, Israel, and Mezvinsky, Norton. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Pluto Press, 1999.
After some additional cabbalistic explanation the Lubovitcher Rebbe concluded:
Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.
Source: Shahak, Israel, and Mezvinsky, Norton. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Pluto Press, 1999.
This quote reveals Schneerson’s view that non-Jewish fetuses are protected to serve Jews, the “purpose” of creation, while Jewish fetuses are subsidiary to adult Jews, exempting Jews from punishment for abortion. From a Catholic perspective, this ideology is not only morally inconsistent but also repugnant, as it dehumanizes non-Jews and subordinates their lives to Jewish supremacy, violating the universal dignity affirmed in Genesis 1:26–27.
Catholic Critique: Immorality and Loopholes in Noahide Abortion Laws
The Catholic Church teaches that human life is sacred from conception, as the fetus bears the imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–27; Evangelium Vitae 60). Abortion is a grave sin, equivalent to murder (CCC 2271), with no exceptions for gestational age or ethnicity. The Noahide Laws’ prohibition against murder appears to protect fetal life, but the 40-day loophole and disparate treatment of Jews and non-Jews expose their moral bankruptcy, as detailed below.
- 40-Day Abortion Loophole: The allowance for abortion up to 40 days, as validated by Dallen’s quote, undermines the Noahide claim to prohibit murder. Catholic theology, rooted in Casti Connubii (1930), rejects any stage-based distinction, as life begins at conception (CCC 2270). The Talmud’s “mere water” view (Yevamot 69b) dehumanizes the early fetus, contradicting the Church’s recognition of its full personhood (Psalm 139:13–16). This loophole permits the destruction of innocent life, violating the Noahide murder prohibition and exposing its inconsistency with Catholic moral absolutes.
- Disparate Treatment of Jews and Non-Jews: Schneerson’s teaching, as quoted by Shahak and Mezvinsky, reveals a shocking disparity: non-Jews face death for abortion because the fetus serves Jews, while Jews are exempt, as the adult Jew is the “purpose” of creation. This is morally indefensible, as it prioritizes Jewish lives over non-Jewish ones, contradicting the universal dignity affirmed by the Church (Rerum Novarum, 1891). The Roman Catechism (Part III, on the Fifth Commandment) teaches that all humans are equal before God, and no group’s life is “subsidiary” to another’s. Schneerson’s view that non-Jewish fetuses are property to serve Jews is disgusting, as it reduces human life to a utilitarian tool, violating the intrinsic value of every person (CCC 2258).
- Immoral Ideology and Supremacy: The notion that non-Jews cannot abort because their fetuses serve Jews, while Jews can because adult Jews embody creation’s purpose, is not only inconsistent but abhorrent. It echoes a supremacist ideology that dehumanizes non-Jews, akin to historical injustices condemned by the Church (Gaudium et Spes 27). The Noahide framework’s failure to punish Jewish abortions equally reveals a double standard, undermining its claim to universal morality. Catholic teaching, as per Evangelium Vitae (1995), insists on equal protection for all unborn life, regardless of ethnicity, as each fetus is a unique creation of God (Jeremiah 1:5).
- Contrast with Catholic Moral Consistency: Unlike Noahidism’s loopholes and disparities, Catholic moral theology offers a consistent ethic: abortion is always wrong, as it violates the sanctity of life (CCC 2271). The Church’s stance, rooted in natural law and divine revelation, applies universally, with no exemptions for time or ethnicity. Noahidism’s permissive stance on early abortions and ethnic disparities fails to uphold the absolute value of life, rendering it morally deficient compared to the Church’s unwavering commitment to the unborn (Humanae Vitae, 1968).
Conclusion: The Need for Catholic Resistance
The Noahide Laws’ abortion prohibitions, with their 40-day loophole and disparate punishments, are not moral but riddled with inconsistencies that undermine human dignity. Schneerson’s ideology, as quoted, is particularly repugnant, treating non-Jewish fetuses as property to serve Jews while excusing Jewish abortions, a stance that dehumanizes both groups and defies the Church’s teaching on universal dignity (Genesis 1:26–27). Catholics must reject Noahidism’s flawed ethics, uphold the sanctity of life from conception (Evangelium Vitae 60), and proclaim Christ’s universal salvation (Acts 4:12). The question remains: why is Father Murray Watson, a Catholic priest, translating Di Segni’s article, promoting a system that denies Christ and endorses such immoral disparities? His actions, possibly driven by misguided ecumenism or lack of discernment, risk misleading Christians, necessitating a return to the Church’s mission to evangelize and defend life (Matthew 28:19; CCC 2258).
Comments
Post a Comment