So let me get this straight.
In your world, the half of the population who support- baby killing are evil.
And the other half who oppose baby-killing are ALSO evil.
Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner.

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 59 

Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence among many religious Jews in Israel as well as in the United States. Schneerson and his Lubovitch followers are Haredim; nevertheless, they involved themselves in Israel's political life and shared many concepts with Gush Emunim and the NRP. The ideas of Rabbi Schneerson that appear below are taken from a book of his recorded messages to followers in Israel, tided Gatherings of Conversations and published in the Holy Land in 1965. During the subsequent three decades of his life until his death, Rabbi Schneerson remained consistent; he did not change any of the opinions. What Rabbi Lubovitch, Hassidic belief.  

Scheerson taught either was or immediately became official, 
Regarding the non-Jew the Lubovitcher Rebbe's views were clear even if a bit disorderly: "In such a manner the Halacha, stipulated by the тαℓмυd, showed that a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo, even if the embryo is non- Jєωιѕн, while the Jew should not be, even if the embryo is Jєωιѕн. As we [the тαℓмυdic sages] learn from Exodus 22:21, beginning with the words 'and if any mischief will follow.'" This quoted verse is a part of a passage beginning in verse 21, describing what should be done "if men strive and hurt a woman with child," thus Lubovitcher Rebbe, says in full: "And if any mischief will follow, damaging the embryo. Verse 22, whose beginning is quoted by the the wording "life for life" instead of "soul for soul.") The above then you shall give soul for soul." (Some English translations use The Lubovitcher Rebbe continued: stated difference in the punishment of a Jew and a non-Jew for the same crime is common in the тαℓмυd and Halacha. 

do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely The difference between a Jєωιѕн and a non-Jєωιѕн person stems from the common expression: "Let us differentiate." Thus, we on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of "let us differenti- ate" between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jєωιѕн person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world ... The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book of Chabad] : "And you have chosen us" [by God], because a choice is thus made between outwardly [the Jews] means specifically that the Jєωιѕн body was chosen similar things. The Jєωιѕн body "looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews," but the meaning ... is that the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality, 

60 Jєωιѕн FUNDAMENTALISM IN ISRAEL  

however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the тαℓмυd states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]" "their bodies are in vain." ... An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jєωιѕн soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jєωιѕн soul stems from holiness.  

As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jєωιѕн and a non-Jєωιѕн embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jєωιѕн embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase "let us differentiate" about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in the soul of a non-Jєωιѕн embryo. We therefore ask: Why should regard to the soul: the soul of a Jєωιѕн embryo is different than a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jєωιѕн embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jєωιѕн embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning." This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the "heavens and the earth - are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim."  

After some additional cabbalistic explanation the Lubovitcher Rebbe concluded: 
Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew's entire birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. reality is only vanity. It is written, "And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks" [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non- Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew  

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 61  

should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated embryo is merely of subsidiary importance. 

 This is a far more difficult and complicated subject than most commentaries suggest. Abortion, or feticide, is commonly regarded as "shedding the blood of man in man," and tantamount to "shedding the blood of man by man." So it violates the Rainbow Covenant law against murder. However, up to forty (40) days — not quite six weeks — after conception a human fetus is considered to be "mere water," "mere tissue," or really little more than a hairy egg. It may be destroyed without the imposition of any legal penalty. (Dallen, 2003, p. 194)
SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.