The Value of Life: Abortion, Euthanasia and Speciesism

Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy. The ethical debate concerns the moral status of the unborn child alongside the pregnant woman’s rights, health and circumstances.

A pro-life argument holds that unborn human life has a right to protection. If full moral protection begins at conception, abortion is understood as ending an innocent human life. A pro-choice argument emphasises the woman’s right to decide what happens to her body, including whether she continues a pregnancy. People also disagree about when a developing embryo or foetus should have the same moral status as a person already born.

Circumstances matter to many people’s judgements. A pregnancy might threaten the woman’s life, result from rape or involve a condition expected to cause the child severe suffering. These cases raise the question of whether protecting unborn life should always take priority, or whether abortion can sometimes prevent greater harm.

Why many Christians oppose abortion

Roman Catholic teaching rejects direct abortion: abortion intended either as the aim of an action or as a means to another aim. The Church teaches that human life must be protected from conception. The Catechism provides an important source of authority for this position, while Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (1995) describes direct abortion as a grave moral wrong.

Catholic and Orthodox opposition rests on the belief that humans should not deliberately destroy innocent life given by God. Many Evangelical Christians also strongly oppose abortion, drawing on biblical authority. Exodus 20:13 commands, ‘You shall not murder.’ Christians who regard the unborn child as a person apply this commandment to abortion.

Jeremiah 1:5 states, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.’ Although these words concern God’s calling of Jeremiah, many Christians use them to support the belief that unborn life is known and valued by God.

From this viewpoint, compassion should mean supporting the woman and protecting the child rather than choosing abortion. Practical help for parents and adoption are possible responses. The strength of this argument is its consistent protection of vulnerable life; its difficulty is explaining what should happen when continuing a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or causes serious harm.

Why some Christians allow abortion in exceptional cases

The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with recognition that, in strictly limited circumstances, it may be morally preferable to the alternatives. Examples include a serious threat to the woman’s life or a pregnancy resulting from rape. This is sometimes described as choosing the lesser of two evils: judging an action wrong or regrettable, but less harmful than the available alternatives.

Some Christians use situation ethics, asking what would be the most loving action in the particular case. Jesus’s teaching to love one’s neighbour can support concern for the woman’s physical and mental wellbeing as well as for the unborn child.

The disagreement is therefore not simply between Christians who value life and Christians who do not. It concerns how to respond when duties appear to conflict. A Christian allowing an exceptional abortion may argue that saving the woman’s life is the most compassionate response. An opponent may reply that compassion cannot justify deliberately ending another innocent life.

Many Humanists take a pro-choice position. They emphasise informed choice, bodily autonomy and preventing harm, usually giving particular weight to the woman’s interests because she must undergo the pregnancy. However, non-religious people do not all reach the same conclusion, and supporting choice does not mean treating abortion as an easy decision.

Euthanasia and other end-of-life decisions

Euthanasia means deliberately ending another person’s life to relieve suffering. In voluntary euthanasia, the person requests it. In non-voluntary euthanasia, the person cannot give consent. Involuntary euthanasia goes against the person’s wishes and must not be confused with a freely chosen death.

In assisted suicide, someone provides help, but the person ending their life performs the final act themselves. This differs from euthanasia, where another person performs that act. The phrase ‘assisted dying’ is used in different ways, so it is important to explain the particular proposal being discussed.

Withdrawing treatment that no longer benefits a patient is also different from deliberately administering a lethal substance. A decision not to continue burdensome or futile treatment can allow an illness to take its natural course rather than aim to cause death. Opposing euthanasia does not necessarily mean demanding every possible treatment until the last moment.

Christian opposition and compassionate care

Most Christians oppose euthanasia because life belongs to God and human dignity does not disappear through illness. Exodus 20:13 supports opposition to deliberate killing. Job 1:21, ‘The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away’, is used to express the belief that life and death ultimately belong to God.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox teaching rejects deliberate euthanasia. Catholic teaching holds that even a compassionate motive cannot make the intentional killing of an innocent person acceptable. Some Christians also believe that suffering can have spiritual meaning, although this does not remove their responsibility to relieve pain and care for the sufferer.

Catholics support palliative care, which manages pain and distress without intending death. The principle of double effect can permit pain relief even if shortening life is a foreseeable side effect, provided death is not the aim or the means of relieving suffering. It is not permission to give a lethal dose with the intention of killing.

Hospices show how dignity can be protected through care rather than euthanasia. They offer medical, emotional and spiritual support to patients and their families. Dame Cicely Saunders, inspired by her Christian faith, founded St Christopher’s Hospice in London in 1967, a pioneering modern hospice.

Christian differences over ending suffering

The Church of England generally opposes euthanasia, and many Protestants argue that love means caring for the dying, not ending their lives. However, some individual Christians reason that, in an exceptional case of terrible suffering and a freely expressed wish to die, helping someone die could be the most loving response.

This compassionate argument gives weight to suffering and the person’s wishes. Its opponents reply that everyone retains equal worth, even when seriously ill, and that people may feel pressure to die because they believe they are a burden.

Acceptance of withdrawing futile treatment should not automatically be treated as support for euthanasia. A Christian may support allowing natural death while still rejecting deliberate killing. The intention behind the action is central to this distinction.

Humanism and Dignity in Dying

Many Humanists support a choice of assisted dying because they value self-determination: a person’s ability to make informed decisions about their own life. They argue that forcing a dying person to endure intolerable suffering can undermine compassion and dignity. Since they do not base morality on God’s authority over life and death, they assess the consequences for the people involved.

Dignity in Dying campaigns for assisted dying for terminally ill adults who are mentally competent, with safeguards against coercion and abuse. Humanists UK also supports assisted-dying reform. Dignity in Dying is not exclusively a Humanist organisation, and its proposal should not be presented as permission to end anyone’s life whenever others judge it undesirable.

Supporters argue that a voluntary choice could prevent needless suffering while respecting individual freedom. Opponents, including some non-religious people, worry that vulnerable patients might feel pressure to choose death, that trust in doctors could weaken, or that access to good care might receive less attention.

Safeguards are therefore part of the argument, not an optional detail. A justified conclusion must consider both the importance of choice and whether people can be adequately protected from pressure. For example, someone might support a narrowly limited choice because they judge competent adults’ wishes decisive; another might oppose it because they judge the risks to vulnerable people greater than the benefits.

Peter Singer: does being human justify priority?

Peter Singer is an atheist philosopher who challenges the idea that human life is automatically more valuable simply because it is human. He criticises speciesism: favouring the interests of one species merely because of its species membership.

Singer gives particular importance to sentience, the capacity to experience pain and pleasure. If a human and an animal can both suffer, the animal’s suffering should not be dismissed just because it is not human. For example, causing an animal pain for a minor human benefit raises the question of why that benefit should outweigh the animal’s suffering.

This is an argument for equal consideration of comparable interests, not a claim that every human and animal must have identical rights or treatment. Different beings can have different needs; the point is that species membership alone is not a sufficient moral reason to ignore suffering.

Catholic teaching offers a contrasting position: humans have a distinctive dignity because they are made in God’s image. Singer rejects that religious basis for giving humans special status. The central disagreement is whether moral importance should rest on being human or on capacities and interests such as the ability to suffer.

Singer’s approach takes animal suffering seriously and challenges inconsistent treatment. A difficulty is that placing weight on capacities must also address how vulnerable humans are protected. Evaluating the debate means considering both the case for taking animal interests seriously and the reasons offered for distinctive human worth.

• Catholic and Orthodox: protect life from conception; reject deliberate abortion.
• Many Evangelicals: oppose abortion through biblical authority and sanctity of life.
• Church of England: strong opposition, but strictly limited exceptions may be the lesser of two evils, such as danger to the woman’s life or pregnancy following rape.
• Some Christians: situation ethics weighs the most loving response to conflicting needs.
• Many Humanists: pro-choice; prioritise informed choice, bodily autonomy and the woman’s wellbeing.

Authority: Jeremiah 1:5 supports valuing unborn life; Exodus 20:13 supports opposition to deliberate killing.

Euthanasia

• Most Christians: oppose deliberate killing; life comes from God and retains dignity through illness.
• Catholic and Orthodox: reject euthanasia; support compassionate care.
• Some individual Christians: relief of extreme suffering may be the most loving response.
• Important distinction: withdrawing futile treatment is not necessarily euthanasia. Pain relief aims to relieve suffering, not cause death.
• Hospice care: protects dignity through medical, emotional and spiritual support.

Authority: Genesis 1:27 — God’s image; Exodus 20:13 — prohibition of murder; Job 1:21 — God’s authority over life and death.

Humanism and assisted dying

• Support: autonomy, compassion, quality of life and relief of suffering.
• Dignity in Dying: choice for terminally ill, mentally competent adults, with safeguards.
• Opposition: pressure on vulnerable people, possible abuse and concerns about medical trust.
• Evaluation: weigh a freely chosen death against the effectiveness of protection and care.

Singer and animal life

• Rejects automatic human superiority based only on species.
• Sentience: suffering and pleasure give beings morally important interests.
• Equal consideration does not require identical treatment.
• Contrast: Christian belief in distinctive human dignity through being made in God’s image.