Abortion is among the most significant contemporary jurisprudential, ethical, and legal issues addressed in divine religions, particularly Judaism and Islam. Medical advances and emerging challenges have intensified the need to reassess abortion under various circumstances. Employing a descriptive-analytical and comparative method, this study examines the similarities and differences between Jewish and Shia jurisprudence on abortion across ten principal themes, based on jurisprudential and library sources. The findings indicate that both legal systems uphold common principles, including the prohibition of abortion, the sanctity of human life, and the mother’s right to self-defense. Nevertheless, they differ fundamentally regarding the onset of human personhood and the criteria and scope of permissibility. Divergent approaches are also evident in cases involving fetal abnormalities, maternal psychological distress, and illegitimate fetuses. In Jewish jurisprudence, the fetus prior to birth does not possess full human personhood and is generally regarded as part of the mother’s body. Consequently, abortion may be permitted at any stage when the mother’s physical or psychological health is endangered, resulting in a broader scope of permissibility. In contrast, Shiʿi jurisprudence maintains that fetal life begins at conception and attains full human status upon ensoulment. Accordingly, abortion is generally prohibited, though it may be permitted before ensoulment in cases of severe hardship and, according to most jurists, after ensoulment when the mother’s life is at risk. Since Shiʿi jurisprudence considers the rights of both the mother and the fetus, the scope of permissibility remains more limited.