I wish I had more time (San 72b)

I've always been told that Judaism has been relatively liberal when it comes to a women's right to choose. The Religious Action Center is clear in it's pro-choice position. Therefore I was very excited to encounter the discussion of this issue in yesterday's daf.

The Talmud quotes Mishnah Oholot 7:6:

If a women is in hard labor, they chop up the child in her womb and they remove it limb by limb because her life takes precedence over his life. Once a baby's head has left the mother's body we may not touch it (i.e kill it) to save the mother's life, for we do not push aside one person's life on account of another person's life.  

The RAC explains that his text is the precedent for their position:

Mishnah Ohaloth 7:6, for example, forbids a woman from sacrificing her own life for that of the fetus, and if her life is threatened, the text permits her no other option but abortion. In addition, if the mental health, sanity, or self-esteem of the woman (i.e. in the case of rape or incest) is at risk due to the pregnancy itself, Mishnah permits the woman to terminate the pregnancy. It is due to the fundamental Jewish belief in the sanctity of life that abortion is viewed as both a moral and correct decision under some circumstances.

I respect the RAC's position. In fact, I agree with it. However, I'm not sure where the jump in logic comes from. How does endangering life also mean endangering one's mental health, especially as it pertains to the argument in yesterday's daf. The reason one may sacrifice the fetus is because it is a rodef (a legal category that means pursuer who may be killed if he is in the process of pursuing someone in order to kill them). I'm not sure if rape or assault is considered worthy of protecting someone from a rodef and would be interested to know this. Nevertheless, I wouldn't put a rodef in the same category as one who would cause low self esteem (although I would be pleased to be proven wrong).

Nevertheless, I wonder if there are more nuanced ways than the RAC's to deal with the issue of women's choice while still staying true to the text and the notion of a rodef. Again, my politics are liberal and I would welcome this. Maybe a good summer project is to really follow the reasoning of the CCAR Responsa in depth. Or perhaps to read what the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards came up with. Or else maybe just Wikipedia.

Regardless, I wish I had more time.