Is the morning-after pill considered an abortion in Halachic terms or does it have another status, and, if the latter, may it be used?

  • 5
    @whoever-flagged-to-close-as-psak-seeking - do you want to close every halacha question on this site? Sep 29, 2014 at 20:52

2 Answers 2


As heard from Rabbi Weiner, a student of Rabbi Elyashiv and a bio-halachist:

When the morning-after pill is administered, we do not know if there is an embryo present. Hence it is permissible in the case of a rape. (He wouldn't go so far as to give it carte blanche for, say, the happily-married couple who are trying to space their pregnancies a bit better.)

  • 2
    I heard it from Rabbi Weiner directly at a medical halacha/ethics seminar in ~2005. Not sure if there's mp3 or txt or the like.
    – Shalom
    Sep 4, 2011 at 9:06
  • 2
    Since no one has any business deciding halachah from this site: With a 39k reputation, I think Shalom's report of a Posek's position is sufficient for our purposes. :)
    – Yirmeyahu
    Feb 20, 2012 at 7:15
  • 3
    I sure hope we did't start judging halachic qualification based on a SE rating...
    – Mbrevda
    Feb 20, 2012 at 14:30
  • 2
    Who said anything about judging halachic qualification.
    – Yirmeyahu
    Feb 20, 2012 at 15:17
  • 2
    @Yirmeyahu ... which is, indeed, valuable for the sake of discussion, though documentary evidence would be more valuable, partly because it can be verified independently and investigated for more detail. Your points that "no one has any business deciding halachah from this site" and that "halachic qualification" has no relevance to user accounts here are exactly right.
    – Isaac Moses
    Feb 20, 2012 at 16:17

"The right to life is a basic halachic right beginning from the 40th day after conception.

According to this understanding, that "life" begins 40 days after conception, taking a pill "the morning after", which prevents embryo attachment to the uterus, would not be halachically considered an abortion.

There may be other reasons why it shouldn't be relied on as a primary method of birth control, but it seems from these sources that the heter to use this pill would extend beyond cases of rape.

Even if a young observant teenage girl made a mistake and had unprotected sex willingly, taking this pill is a far better option than forcing her to endure the humiliation of a teenage pregnancy. While such things may be relatively normal in the secular world, if a teenage girl in a frum community got pregnant, it would embarrass her family, deny her any decent shidduch in the future, and effectively ban her from all aspects of community participation.

I'm NOT saying that the consequences above are a good enough reason to have an ABORTION. They aren't. However, since taking the morning after pill is not an abortion, the above consequences are more than enough of a heter to use it.

  • 2
    @Mbrevda, I'm not sure if your comment is meant sarcastically or not. If it is, I'd point out that there are many situations in which halacha on the books and individual responsa explicitly consider things like people's future ability to marry and participate in the community. One big example would be the lengths we go to to avoid declaring someone a mamzer.
    – Isaac Moses
    Feb 20, 2012 at 16:20
  • 1
    @IsaacMoses I also wasn't clear on the intent of that comment, so I didn't address it. I stated explicitly in my answer that embarrassment is not a heter to have an abortion. It's possible that a woman would not need any heter at all to take this pill, since there doesn't seem to be an actual issur involved. Nonetheless, some may say it's "not good middos" or whatever. If so, avoiding embarrassment and lifelong single status is more than enough to do something that's' "not good middos".
    – user1095
    Feb 20, 2012 at 16:34
  • 2
    "The right to life is a basic halachic right beginning from the 40th day after conception." I've never heard of this right. Can you point to it in any classical source? I know of a prohibition on taking (or causing cessation of) life, but I've never heard of a right of someone who has life to continue it. If such a right were to exist, it seems as though God, who binds himself, so to speak, by his own promises to do good, would also bind himself to honoring this right, so would never take a life, which of course is not the case. Again: any classical source? Or any source besides that Web page?
    – msh210
    Feb 20, 2012 at 18:23
  • 1
    @msh210 I think that the source I brought was framing the halachic attitude towards abortion in the language of the American political debate on abortion. "Right to life" is just a contemporary political way of saying that the entity in question cannot morally be killed. Versus an animal, which can be killed for its meat, its hide, for sport (in Western morality but not halacha), if it gets too old and doesn't have a good quality of life, etc.
    – user1095
    Feb 20, 2012 at 19:23
  • 2
    @Mbrevda The topic of this question is "Morning After Pill in Halacha", no matter what you think it "seems" to be. I didn't ask if Mr. Cheeseburger is permanently affected spiritually; I asked if you would throw him out of the community forever, and you said no. You're right, either the pill is assur or it isn't. However, many frum communities refrain from things that aren't assur, for all sorts of communal policy reasons. I'm simply saying that a young girl's de facto banishment from the frum community overrides refraining for communal policy reasons.
    – user1095
    Feb 21, 2012 at 12:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .