Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: The Long-Term “Hypocrisy” of Pro-Life in Israel and the U.S.
We all know that America has a strong “pro-life” movement – but Israel? In fact, while it’s not specifically called that, Israel’s underlying ethos – religious and secular – is even more widely “pro-life” than its Big Sister over the sea. But why my title with “hypocrisy”?
To understand that, let’s have a look at “pro-life” in the U.S., referring to the anti-abortion crusade recently given extra support by the Supreme Court in undermining its 50-year federal ruling of Roe vs. Wade. Abortion is now a matter for each of the fifty states to decide for themselves but isn’t automatically legitimate countrywide.
The hypocrisy starts elsewhere: as a general ideological tendency, the same people who are strongly against abortions are also “pro-gun” – clearly not a life-saving policy. Indeed, compared to other advanced countries America is a complete outlier e.g., its gun-related death rate (proportional to the population) is 5 times higher than Canada and 20 times (!) higher than Spain (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us).
American cultural “aggressiveness” is not an explanation, as 60% of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. Yes, “people kill people” – but with stricter gun control, lots of people wouldn’t have the wherewithal for such deadly mayhem. In short, if right-wingers were truly “pro-life,” gun control would be up there on their political platform. And while they were at it, how about prohibiting cigarette smoking too? That kills half a million Americans every year!
Israel has a similar ethos – even more so. Judaism’s supreme value is preserving life: “Saving one life is equivalent to saving the entire world.” Indeed, protecting life negates even Sabbath proscriptions (e.g., although driving a car is prohibited on the sabbath, driving a sick person to the hospital is required on Shabbat).
So, let’s start with the ultra-Orthodox (haredim). If “life” is the be-all and end-all of Judaism, then why do they permit their yeshiva students to smoke, when all evidence shows that on average this reduces lifespan by ten years? Indeed, another proven “killer” is letting one’s body be stationary too long e.g., sitting for hours on end. Sound familiar? The only Israelis who sit for many hours without arising are haredi yeshiva students, many in this position for their entire (shortened) lifetime! (Not facetiously, I would suggest that joining the IDF – exercising their muscles – would save many haredi lives over the long term. Another religious reason for drafting them into the army!)
So ingrained is this principle of preserving life that it has permeated Israeli’s secular weltanschauung as well. For instance, the country’s Supreme Court (Judgment 1742/91) had this to say in upholding the conviction of Ami Popper, who murdered Palestinians:
A person – every person – is one, unique and special… He who was will not be again, and he who has gone will not return. Maimonides has already taught us about the uniqueness of man (Sefer Shoftim, Hilchot Sanhedrin, 12:3): “A person was created unique in the world, to teach: whoever loses one soul from the world – it is as if he had lost an entire world, and whoever saves one soul in the world – it is as if he had saved an entire world.” Therefore, each and every one can say: For me the world was created.
From here to current events, specifically the controversy surrounding the return of Israeli hostages from Hamas captivity. On the face of it, as most Israelis agree, everything should be done to save their life by returning them as quickly as possible. Israel’s present government and its supporters don’t disagree with the need to return the hostages but argue that “saving life” has to include the longer-term consequences of any solution i.e., if undertaken without eliminating Hamas, then the potential loss of life in the future could make the hostage numbers pale by comparison, by letting Hamas regroup and repeat the Oct. 7 massacre (even if by a different variation).
Which brings us back to the Judaic principle of saving life. It seems to relate only to immediate life-saving measures with a clear victim. Thousands of years ago, no one understood “long-term” harm from almost anything. In any case, immediate surrounding dangers were numerous, enough to concentrate the mind and body on saving others “here and now.” It’s only in the relatively recent modern age that we have begun to realize the deleterious effects of behavior “today” on life-threatening damage “tomorrow.” (In this context, one can add American attempts to ameliorate global warming in the past several years – and President Trump’s contemporary massive and real economic threats to force other countries, not just the U.S., to continue buying and burning fossil fuels.)
Such a lag in understanding “today’s” influence on “tomorrow” explains (albeit not necessarily justifies) all the “hypocrisies” mentioned above (ergo, my quote marks around the term). Abortions are “now” regarding a specific woman; gun deaths are broad socially, without any known victim in advance. Smoking doesn’t kill you immediately and not all smokers die from it; ditto with sitting too long on a regular basis. Not having enough traffic cops to enforce speeding restrictions doesn’t immediately lead to anyone’s highway death but certainly has deadly consequences over time. No one knows in advance which Israeli Arabs will die in gangland shootings, but without police presence in Arab towns and cities the numbers this year have reached historic highs. Even regarding Israeli hostages in Gaza, it’s not clear who might die and who would survive – not to mention the potential future damage to life if the agreement with Hamas left it to repeat the terrorists’ murderous ways.
Judaism needs to reconsider its value of “saving life uber alles” – not the “saving life” part (that deserves to remain and even be reinforced), but rather the time scale of such life-preservation. After all, over the long term a lot more deaths can be avoided with proper consideration, regulation, and legislation than it’s possible to save life in the short term.
