Your reading of God's Laws is faulty. I think you are confusing the principle of double effect (a medical procedure to save the life of the mother is morally licit, even if the secondary effect is the loss of the unborn child) with "abortion." A direct abortion is never morally licit, in any circumstance, and no appeal to some fringe interpretation of "G-d's Laws" will ever change that concrete reality.
My "reading of G-d's Laws" is not "faulty." Yours is at variance with Halakhah--both Jewish and Noachide.
I have said several times that abortion is mandatory in only a miniscule number of cases, when the child is a rodef ("pursuer," a Halakhic term referring to someone who is "pursuing" another person to kill him), and when ensoulment has not occurred. After ensoulment the child may not be aborted even to save the mother's life.
Your position is based on Catholicism, "natural law," and rationalism. Mine is based on Theonomic positivism--what is right and what is wrong depends solely on Divine decree, and nothing else.
And where in "G-ds Laws" do you find this idea of ensoulment?
And is there any broad consensus among Jewish scholars, orthodox, conservative, liberal, on your assertions regarding ensoulment? (There is unanimity among the orthodox Christian Churches on abortion, so I trust the orthodox Christian Churches more than your rabbinical tradition on this subject.)
OK, we need to work on what we share in common. Your reference of "rodef" apparently comes from the the Babylonian Talmud:
Obviously, this does not apply to an innocent unborn baby, especially when direct abortion is NEVER medically indicated in this day and age.A rodef (Hebrew רודף, lit. "pursuer"; pl. רודפים, rodfim), in traditional Jewish law, is one who is "pursuing" another to murder him or her. According to Jewish law, such a person must be killed by any bystander after being warned to stop and refusing. The source for this law is the Tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud, page 73a, which begins:
And these are the ones whom one must save even with their lives [i.e., killing the wrongdoer]: one who pursues his fellow to kill him [rodef achar chavero le-horgo], and after a male or a bethrothed maiden [to rape them]; but one who pursues an animal, or desecrates the Sabbath, or commits idolatry are not saved with their lives.
This law, the din rodef ("law of the pursuer"), is significant as one of the few provisions in Jewish law permitting extrajudicial killings.
The allowance to kill the rodef does not apply, however, in a case where lesser means would prevent the innocent's murder.[1] Furthermore, according to the Rambam, killing a rodef who may have been stopped by lesser means constitutes murder, though the punishment for a murderer in this case is not dealt out by Beit din.
Furthermore, the Babylonian Talmud is not part of the Old Testament scriptures (i.e., "G-d's Law") shared in common between Christians and their Elder Brothers, but a tradition of men that was written at the same time New Testament Christianity was developing its own "orthodoxy" on moral theology:
The Talmud Bavli consists of documents compiled over the period of Late Antiquity (3rd to 5th centuries).[9] The most important of the Jewish centres in Mesopotamia during this time were Nehardea, Nisibis, Mahoza, Pumbeditha and the Sura Academy.
Talmud Bavli (the "Babylonian Talmud") comprises the Mishnah and the Babylonian Gemara, the latter representing the culmination of more than 300 years of analysis of the Mishnah in the Babylonian Academies. The foundations of this process of analysis were laid by Rab, a disciple of Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi. Tradition ascribes the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud in its present form to two Babylonian sages, Rav Ashi and Ravina. Rav Ashi was president of the Sura Academy from 375 to 427 CE. The work begun by Rav Ashi was completed by Ravina, who is traditionally regarded as the final Amoraic expounder. Accordingly, traditionalists argue that Ravina’s death in 499 CE is the latest possible date for the completion of the redaction of the Talmud. However, even on the most traditional view a few passages are regarded as the work of a group of rabbis who edited the Talmud after the end of the Amoraic period, known as the Saboraim or Rabbanan Savora'e (meaning "reasoners" or "considerers").
The question as to when the Gemara was finally put into its present form is not settled among modern scholars. Some, like Louis Jacobs, argue that the main body of the Gemara is not simple reportage of conversations, as it purports to be, but a highly elaborate structure contrived by the Saboraim, who must therefore be regarded as the real authors. On this view the text did not reach its final form until around 700. Some modern scholars use the term Stammaim (from the Hebrew Stam, meaning "closed", "vague" or "unattributed") for the authors of unattributed statements in the Gemara. (See eras within Jewish law.)
I can no more accept these late rabbinic traditions of the 400 to 700 AD era as binding and authoritative than you can accept Christian moral theology as binding and authoritive.
So you'll need to come up with some Old Testament texts or Old Testament era rabbinic tradition to defend this novel idea of din rodef if you want to convince orthodox Christians that your view actually reflects "G-d's law."
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
To my knowledge, there is no other place in the Bible where God "ensouls" another human being as he did Adam, yet we know we are all living souls. In fact there is no mention whatsoever in Genesis that God also did the same thing with Eve.
My point is that the soul, like life itself, is an unbroken chain, passed from one human being to another, and all of it originating from that very first breath of God to Adam.
This notion that God sits in heaven and zaps the unborn with a soul (not to mention life itself) at a certain point in gestation is simply nonsense.