The Value of Life: Abortion, Euthanasia and Speciesism

Ahimsa, the principle of non-violence, provides a strong reason to oppose deliberately harming or killing living beings. Some Hindus also understand life as sacred because it comes from God. These beliefs can support opposition to both abortion and euthanasia.

The atman is the spiritual self or soul. Many Hindus believe that it enters the body at conception. On this understanding, abortion ends a developing life which already has a soul, making protection of the unborn child an important moral responsibility.

Hindu concern for life also involves compassion. Many Hindus understand relieving other people’s suffering as part of their dharma, or duty. The difficult question is therefore not whether suffering matters, but how it should be relieved without causing further harm.

Yajur Veda: protecting life and interpreting the Self

The course names Yajur Veda 40–43 as a source of authority for attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia, associated with the argument that sanctity of life should take precedence. Chapter 40 of the Shukla, or White, Yajur Veda is the Isha Upanishad. It contains 17 or 18 verses, depending on the version; ‘40–43’ should therefore not be read as chapter 40, verse 43.

An identifiable passage relevant to this argument is Isha Upanishad verse 3. It warns that ‘slayers of the Self’ go after death to worlds ‘with blind darkness’ covering them. The preceding verse speaks of wishing to live a hundred years while carrying out one’s actions. Together, these passages can support respect for life and opposition to deliberately bringing it to an end.

However, ‘slayers of the Self’ has more than one interpretation. Some interpret it as condemning bodily self-destruction. Applied alongside ahimsa and the sacredness of life, this strengthens opposition to euthanasia and can support protection of unborn life against abortion. This is an application of the teaching, rather than a passage directly discussing either modern medical procedure.

Others understand the warning as spiritual: ignoring the atman and becoming absorbed in material concerns is like destroying one’s spiritual life. On that reading, verse 3 is not a straightforward ban on every deliberate ending of bodily life. The disagreement matters because Hindus may respect the same scripture while reaching different conclusions about what compassion requires.

Abortion: protecting the unborn child and the mother

A Hindu opposed to abortion may argue that ahimsa applies to the unborn child as well as to people who have already been born. If life is sacred from conception, its protection should not depend simply on whether it is wanted.

Other Hindus allow exceptions, especially when continuing the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. Here, protecting life creates a conflict: opposing abortion may protect the foetus but endanger the mother. Permitting abortion can therefore be understood as an attempt to avoid a greater harm, rather than a rejection of ahimsa.

Some Hindus take a more permissive view because the Bhagavad Gita teaches that the soul is not killed when the body is killed. They reason that the atman of an aborted foetus can be born into another body. However, belief in an enduring soul does not automatically settle the issue. An opponent can argue that harming the present body still breaks ahimsa, even if the soul survives.

These arguments show diversity within Hindu thought: shared beliefs do not always produce the same judgement when duties and consequences conflict.

Euthanasia: non-violence and compassion

Hindus who oppose euthanasia argue that deliberately killing another person violates ahimsa. The same principle can support opposition to suicide. They may regard death as a natural part of life which should come in its own time, rather than be deliberately brought forward. Relieving pain through care offers a way to show compassion without deliberately ending life.

Some Hindus support euthanasia in particular circumstances. They may argue that death releases the enduring soul to move on to another life, while bringing present suffering to an end. Their emphasis is on compassion and relief from suffering.

The disagreement concerns how compassion should operate. One position understands compassionate action as protecting and caring for a person until death occurs naturally. Another understands it as allowing death when continued life involves severe suffering. A reasoned judgement must consider whether ending suffering justifies the harm involved in ending bodily life.

A British Hindu example: Hindu Council UK

A specific British example shows how traditional beliefs can support a different emphasis. In a letter published in The Times in March 2014, Anil Bahnot, a founding member of Hindu Council UK, presented the Council’s position that ‘Compassion ought always over-ride the argument for the sacredness of life’.

The position he described concerned terminal illness and incessant pain certified by three independent doctors, particularly where artificial means merely prolonged life without regard to suffering and impending death. He also appealed to reincarnation: death was understood as a transition to another life rather than the final end of existence.

This contrasts with a traditional argument against ending life based on ahimsa and sacredness. Yet it is not simply a rejection of Hindu teaching: compassion and belief in reincarnation are themselves Hindu reasons. British Hindu communities are diverse, so this example should not be treated as a position held by every British Hindu. Nor should the conditions in this 2014 statement be confused with a current legal rule.

Humanist approaches to the value of life

Humanists generally understand this as the one life we have. They seek ethical answers through reason, evidence and empathy rather than religious authority. This gives them strong reasons to value life: people can experience happiness, form relationships, make plans and create meaning.

Their concern also extends to other sentient beings—beings capable of experiences such as pain and pleasure. Animal suffering matters morally, not only suffering experienced by humans. Nevertheless, Humanists can disagree about how these values should guide particular decisions.

A Humanist considering abortion might weigh the pregnant person’s autonomy and wellbeing alongside the effects on developing life and others involved. The method is to consider competing interests and consequences, rather than assume that being non-religious removes moral responsibilities.

Peter Singer: why species alone should not decide moral worth

The philosopher Peter Singer challenges speciesism: favouring the interests of humans over similar interests of other animals simply because they are human. He compares this unjustified preference with racism and sexism. For Singer, the capacity to suffer makes an animal’s interests morally important.

His principle is equal consideration of interests. If a human and a mouse experience similar pain, the mouse’s pain should not count for less merely because it is a mouse. This challenges practices such as animal experimentation or producing food where animal suffering is dismissed simply for human convenience. Singer judges actions by their consequences, including consequences for animals; he does not claim that every animal experiment must be wrong regardless of its benefits.

Equal consideration does not mean identical treatment or that every death involves the same loss. Singer explains that, if only one could be rescued from a burning building, he would normally save a human rather than a mouse. His reason is not species membership alone: a human usually has an understanding of their continuing life and plans for the distant future, so death frustrates these interests as well as causing grief to others. Singer has also acknowledged reconsidering aspects of his account of the wrongness of killing.

Singer and Hindu ahimsa can therefore both support concern for animals, but for different reasons. Ahimsa is a religious duty to avoid harm; Singer appeals to suffering, interests and consequences. A defender of sanctity of life may object that protection should not depend on someone’s capacities. Singer’s response challenges the assumption that being human alone settles every moral comparison.

Dignity in Dying and Humanist campaigning

Dignity in Dying is a campaigning organisation seeking assisted-dying reform for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. Its roots lie in the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society, founded in 1935. Humanists have played a significant part in this movement, although support also comes from religious people: Dignity in Dying is not exclusively a Humanist organisation.

Humanists UK also campaigns for assisted-dying reform. Many Humanist supporters appeal to compassion for someone experiencing incurable suffering and autonomy: respect for a free, informed and carefully considered decision about their own death. They argue that being alive is not the only consideration; the person’s experience of life matters too. Different campaigns may propose different eligibility conditions, so support for assisted dying does not necessarily mean support for every form of euthanasia.

Palliative care is important, but supporters argue that it does not relieve everyone’s suffering sufficiently. They also argue that restricting access to assisted death abroad creates inequality because only some people can afford it.

There are serious objections to weigh. A person might feel pressured to die or believe they are a burden. Supporters therefore argue for strict safeguards and point to evidence from countries allowing assisted dying; critics question whether vulnerable people can always be adequately protected. Improving care is another way to address suffering without deliberately ending life.

A justified conclusion should explain how it balances relief of suffering, genuine choice and protection from pressure. For example, conditional support must explain why safeguards would be sufficient; opposition must explain why protecting life should outweigh a competent person’s wish to avoid suffering. Religious and non-religious thinkers may share these concerns while disagreeing about the best response.

• Ahimsa and sacred life: support opposition to abortion and euthanasia.
• Yajur Veda 40–43: the course’s sanctity-of-life reference. Isha Upanishad, chapter 40, verse 3 warns of darkness for ‘slayers of the Self’. Bodily self-destruction and spiritual self-neglect are different interpretations; applying it to abortion and euthanasia requires explanation.
• Atman at conception: many Hindus believe this, supporting protection of unborn life.
• Abortion exceptions: some permit abortion to save the mother’s life.
• Enduring soul: some use its survival to support more permissive views; others argue bodily harm still violates ahimsa.
• British example: in 2014, Anil Bahnot described Hindu Council UK’s support based on compassion, terminal illness and incessant pain certified by three independent doctors. This is not every British Hindu’s view.

Singer and animal life

• Speciesism: favouring a species simply because of membership.
• Equal consideration: similar suffering deserves similar moral weight, whether human or animal.
• Equal consideration does not mean identical treatment. Different interests, future plans and consequences can affect judgements about saving life.
• Compare Singer’s reasoning from interests and consequences with Hindu ahimsa and sanctity of life.

Humanism and assisted dying

• Apply empathy, reason and evidence to human and animal wellbeing.
• Value this life, autonomy and quality of life without appealing to sacred authority.
• Dignity in Dying: campaigns for assisted-dying reform for terminally ill, mentally competent adults; roots in the society founded in 1935. Humanists are important supporters, but it is not exclusively Humanist.
• Humanists UK: supports reform through arguments about compassion, informed choice and unequal access.
• Weigh these against pressure on vulnerable people, doubts about safeguards and alternatives through palliative care.

Essential distinction

Euthanasia: another person deliberately ends someone’s life.

Assisted dying: a person receives help to end their own life.