The Value of Life: Abortion, Euthanasia and Speciesism

What makes a life valuable?

Decisions about abortion, care at the end of life and the treatment of animals depend on what people think makes life valuable. Is life sacred because it comes from God? Does its value depend on the experiences a being can have? How much weight should we give to someone’s wishes when protecting life also means prolonging suffering?

For Muslims, sanctity of life means that life is sacred because it comes from Allah. A person’s value does not disappear because they become ill, disabled or dependent on others. Qur’an 30:40 teaches: “Allah is the one who created you, then provided for you, then will cause you to die, and then will give you life.” This connects the value of life with Allah’s authority over its beginning and end, as well as belief in life after death.

Humanists also value life, but do not ground that value in God. They commonly emphasise wellbeing, compassion, reason and informed choice. The disagreement is therefore not simply between people who value life and people who do not: it concerns why life matters and what protecting it requires.

Abortion: protecting unborn life and the mother

Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth. It raises a conflict between protecting developing unborn life and considering the pregnant woman’s life, health and circumstances.

Many Muslims oppose abortion because the unborn child is also part of Allah’s creation. Qur’an 5:32 expresses the seriousness of unjust killing by comparing killing one person with killing all humanity. Muslims may apply this principle to protecting unborn life, although the verse does not directly discuss abortion.

An important distinction is ensoulment, when the soul enters the developing child. Many Muslim scholars understand this to occur 120 days after conception, drawing on a Hadith describing three stages of forty days followed by the soul being breathed into the body. This helps explain why abortion later in pregnancy is generally judged more severely.

Before ensoulment, some scholars permit abortion for serious reasons, such as danger to the mother’s health or a severe foetal condition that means the child would not survive after birth. Others take a more restrictive position. Earlier abortion is therefore not automatically acceptable, and Muslims do not all follow one identical rule.

After ensoulment, abortion is generally forbidden, with an exception commonly recognised when continuing the pregnancy seriously threatens the mother’s life. Saving her can be understood as choosing the lesser harm when both lives cannot be preserved. This does not mean that the unborn child has no value: it recognises a tragic conflict between protecting two lives.

Financial difficulty is not generally accepted as sufficient justification. Qur’an 17:31 warns against killing children for fear of poverty and teaches trust in Allah’s provision. This encourages support for parents rather than ending a pregnancy because a child seems unaffordable.

Weighing the arguments about abortion

The strength of the Islamic objection is that it protects vulnerable life independently of whether that life is wanted or convenient. However, a strict prohibition can create a serious dilemma when pregnancy endangers the woman. The recognised life-saving exception shows that protecting life sometimes requires weighing competing responsibilities.

Many Humanists take a pro-choice position. They argue that the woman bears the physical consequences of pregnancy and should make an informed decision about her own body. They may also consider the effects of rape, serious illness or severe distress. Their reasoning usually gives particular weight to the woman’s interests, especially early in pregnancy.

An objection is that choice alone may not settle the moral status of the unborn child. A justified conclusion should therefore explain how it weighs the woman’s autonomy, the stage of pregnancy and the seriousness of the circumstances. Neither a religious nor a non-religious position should be reduced to a slogan.

Euthanasia and Islamic care for the dying

Euthanasia means deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering. Voluntary euthanasia is carried out at the person’s request. Assisted dying can involve providing help for a person to end their own life, rather than another person directly administering the act that causes death.

Most Muslims reject deliberate euthanasia as haram, meaning forbidden. Life belongs to Allah, and humans should not deliberately decide that an innocent person’s life should end. Qur’an 30:40 supports this emphasis on Allah’s authority over life and death. Qur’an 3:145 also teaches that death occurs by Allah’s permission at an appointed time.

Illness does not remove a person’s dignity. Suffering may be understood as part of the test of life, while caring for the sick is a religious responsibility. This is not an instruction to leave pain untreated: compassion is expressed through medical care, emotional support, prayer and relief of suffering.

Palliative care aims to relieve pain and other symptoms without intending death. Hospice care can also support the patient and family emotionally and spiritually. These approaches offer an alternative to deliberately ending life.

Islamic opposition to euthanasia does not necessarily require every possible treatment to continue indefinitely. Some scholars permit withdrawing treatment when doctors are certain that it cannot restore life and merely delays dying. The Islamic Code of Medical Ethics rejects maintaining such a condition through futile ‘heroic means’. The distinction is between deliberately causing death and allowing natural death when treatment no longer helps.

Humanist choice and Dignity in Dying

Many Humanists support a safeguarded choice of assisted dying because they value self-determination: the ability to make decisions about one’s own life. They argue that a mentally competent person facing unavoidable death and intolerable suffering should not have to endure that suffering against their wishes.

Their emphasis is often on quality of life, including comfort and freedom from distress, rather than preserving life for as long as possible regardless of its condition. Compassion, in this view, can include respecting a considered request to die.

Dignity in Dying campaigns for a restricted choice of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. Its position is not that anyone should be able to end another person’s life. The request must come from the individual, and safeguards are intended to prevent pressure or abuse. Humanists support this campaign, but the organisation is not exclusively Humanist.

The central argument in favour is that respecting a free, informed choice can prevent unnecessary suffering. The central objection is that vulnerable people might feel pressured to die or believe that they are a burden. Supporters answer that strict safeguards can protect against this; opponents question whether safeguards can remove every risk.

A reasoned conclusion should consider both freedom and protection. It should also distinguish supporting excellent palliative care from supporting assisted dying: people may agree about the need for care while disagreeing about whether deliberately assisting death should ever be an option.

Human and animal life: Singer’s challenge

Non-religious people do not all rank human and animal life in the same way. Some give human life particular importance because of human intelligence, self-awareness and complex relationships. Others question whether these differences justify using animals for food, clothing or medical experiments.

Peter Singer, a Humanist philosopher, criticises speciesism: favouring human interests simply because they belong to humans. He compares this with other forms of prejudice, where membership of a group is treated as sufficient reason to give its interests greater weight.

For Singer, sentience is crucial. A sentient being can experience pain and pleasure, so what happens to it matters to its wellbeing. An animal does not need to speak or reason like a human for its suffering to count. Our evolutionary connection with other animals also challenges the idea that humans are entirely separate from the animal world.

Consider painful medical experiments on animals. A defender might argue that they can help prevent serious human illness. Singer’s challenge is that animal suffering must still be counted: it cannot be dismissed merely because the subjects are not human. The relevant questions concern the suffering caused, the likely benefits and whether less harmful alternatives exist.

This does not require treating every species identically. Different beings have different needs. The principle is that comparable interests, such as avoiding pain, deserve serious consideration regardless of species.

Assessing the importance of sentience

Singer’s approach makes suffering morally visible even when the creature experiencing it cannot communicate with us in words. It challenges the assumption that greater intelligence automatically gives humans permission to harm other animals.

However, judging sentience and comparing interests can be difficult. Human lives involve relationships, plans and responsibilities that may give additional reasons for protecting them. Some people also argue that dignity should not depend on how much awareness a person can currently demonstrate.

A defensible conclusion can recognise special responsibilities towards humans while rejecting unnecessary animal suffering. Alternatively, it can give sentience the greatest weight and require a stronger justification for using animals. The important step is to identify a morally relevant reason, rather than assuming that ‘human’ automatically means ‘more important’.

Islamic attitudes to abortion

• Life is sacred because it comes from Allah; unborn life deserves protection.
• Ensoulment: commonly understood as 120 days after conception, based on Hadith.
• Before ensoulment, some scholars permit abortion for serious reasons; others are stricter.
• After ensoulment, it is generally forbidden except to save the mother’s life.
• Qur’an 17:31 challenges abortion motivated by fear of poverty.

Islamic attitudes to euthanasia

• Deliberately ending life is generally haram: Allah has authority over life and death.
• Qur’an 30:40: Allah creates, sustains, causes death and gives life again.
• Compassion means care and pain relief, not deliberate killing.
• Some scholars permit withdrawing futile treatment: allowing natural death is distinct from causing it.

Humanism and Dignity in Dying

• Many Humanists emphasise quality of life, informed choice and relief of suffering.
• Dignity in Dying supports safeguarded assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults who request it.
• Main debate: autonomy and compassion versus risks of pressure and harm to vulnerable people.

Singer and animal life

• Species membership alone should not determine whose interests count.
• Sentience makes suffering morally relevant; intelligence is not a reason to dismiss pain.
• Equal consideration of interests does not mean identical treatment.
• Evaluation: weigh animal suffering against claimed benefits and consider alternatives; human relationships and responsibilities may also matter.