There are two problems with this analogy.
The first is a minor problem. Judaism doesn’t teach that gentiles should abstain from pork. The Jewish belief is that pork in malum prohibitum for Jews, that it is only forbidden for Jews because God forbade Jews to eat it. But that’s a minor point. We can replace eating pork with idolatry, which Jews believe is universally forbidden, and the logic would remain the same.
The major problem can be seen from this analogous reasoning:
7. It was legal in Nazi Germany to kill people for being incurably sick
8. The Christian religion is against killing people for being incurably sick
9. Christians could not (but did) demand that the rest of Nazi Germany be against the killing of the incurably sick
Most people will reject the inference 7-9, and agree that it was morally right (if very dangerous) to protest Aktion T4. Why? What is the relevant difference between eating pork and killing people who are incurably sick?
Clearly, the difference is in the people being affected. When a person eats pork, the effects are on that person. When a person kills another, the person being killed (say, the one judged incurably sick by a Nazi doctor) suffers the effects.
Of what type is reasoning chain 4-6? That depends on whether you consider a fetus a human being with rights, or a morally meaningless clump of cells to be disposed of as the pregnant woman desires. The analogy between 1-3 and 4-6 presupposes that the fetus is a morally meaningless clump of cells that can be disposed of for any reason or none. But the entire abortion debate revolves on that specific point. To silently assume one position makes for an argument that only appears valid to those who were already holding that position.
Note: Please do not debate abortion here. That debate has been done to death and beyond, and there’s almost nothing interesting to say about it. This blog post is for debating the logical form of argumentation on display here.
