Catholics base their views on abortion on the idea of natural law. Natural law is based upon the idea that everything within nature has a role and that God created these roles and therefore only he has the right of control over those roles. Therefore using the principle of natural law Catholics would always state that abortion is wrong because it is going against the natural law of the world.
Catholics also have moral laws and moral theologies (that can beapplied to the issue of abortion.) As Robin Gill states ( In A Textbook Of Christian Ethics) ‘Moral law holds that any interference with an embryo after fertilisation is murder ie the taking of an innocent human beings life.’ He also goes on to say that ‘ (4) Catholic moral theology goes far beyond event the rigid legalising criminal law absolutising the prohibition of abortion absolutely by denying all exceptions and calling even therapeutic abortion wrong (they allow killing in self defence against malicious ie deliberate aggressors but not in self defence against the innocent ie unintentional aggressors.). Thus if it is a tragic choice of the mothers life or the baby’s can happen in rare cases neither can be saved.
Within the Church of England, one view on abortion that has been put forward from the General Synod of the Church of England in 1983. ‘The General Synod of the Church of England made a resolution that recognised under certain extreme circumstances abortion was permissible. In situations where the continuance of a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.’
All of the denominations (within the Christian faith) base their beliefs on what could be summed up as four key teachings. Those four basic teachings are as follows:
- The sanctity of life and the belief that all life is holy and belongs to God, therefore only God has the right to end a pregnancy.
- The belief that life begins at the moment of conception.
- The belief that the unborn child is created in the image of God and is one for whom Jesus the son of God died.
- The belief that every human being has the right to life.
Protestants differ from Roman Catholics because they sometimes believe/take the viewpoint that abortion could be the lesser of two evils. This would particularly allow abortion in the case of rape and if the baby would be born handicapped. They would also allow abortion if the life of the mother was threatened. These views therefore take on a different approach to the sanctity of life, Protestants still agree with the idea of the sanctity of life but they can in some circumstances choose which of the two lives (the mother or the child) they believe to be the most sacred and protect that one.
‘The Doctrine of Double Effect’, is often used by Christians. As Victor W Watton states (in Religion and Life) ‘The doctrine of double effect is often used when discussing abortion. This is the idea that if a person takes an action to attain an effect knowing that it will produce another they cannot be blamed for the second occurring. For example if a person removes a cancerous tumour from the womb of a pregnant woman they know, this will kill the foetus, but this is not an abortion because the intention is simply to remove the cancer.’ (5)
Overall however the majority of Christians and Christian thinkers would not agree that the practice of abortion should be allowed, therefore the practice of abortion is incompatible with Christian belief in the sanctity of life.
One of the main weaknesses that could be attributed to all Christian beliefs (no matter from which denomination the belief comes from) when they quote from the Bible to further (back up) their argument, this has one fundamental flaw. The flaw being that no where in the Bible does It directly prohibit abortions, (they say that it is against the will of God. Most Christians say that the sixth commandment prohibits murderous acts, which some Christians take to being about abortions) but no one can really be sure what extra connotations the words in the Bible really have. Another weakness of the views that manifest themselves within the Christian Church is the fact that none of these views (that come from the different denominations) can completely agree on such issues as abortion. This lack of coherency can lead to the congregation of the Christian Church becoming confused as to the official line that they should follow when making moral decisions.
A strength, of the views held by Christians within the Christian Church would be that all the denominations believe that the practice of abortion is inherently wrong (despite their divisions as detailed above). This gives most (if not all) Christians a common view and thus they are not too divided. They are united in one purpose and that is protecting the sanctity of life (even though some denominations may condone the practice of abortion in certain circumstances ie Protestant). Another main strength (of some of the denominations on the issue of abortion ie Protestants and the Church of England) is that they have/are allowed by their supreme authority to actively think about the issue of abortion. This is partly allowed by the existence of the ‘dual effect’ (see the definition earlier) and by the fact that unlike the Roman Catholic church (who have the Cathechism) they are allowed to contemplate abortion in some circumstances. Therefore the fact that they can asses each individual and take an almost situational ethical (situation ethics is based upon looking at the situation and deciding what is the most loving thing to do in that situation) approach to the issue of abortion.
The attitudes of medical practicioners towards abortion tend to view the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child, when making decisions. The main predicament that doctors find themselves in when deciding if they should perform an abortion or not has been summed up by James and Audrey Bentley (in Contemporary issues a Christian View), they state that ‘Either the doctors who perform the abortion are simply removing an unthinking unfeeling bundle of protoplasm from the mothers womb, or they are killing a human being capable of experiencing sensations.’ (6) This predicament can never be easy but doctors usually have to act no matter what their own personal views. They have a series of rules that they have to follow (see the Hippocratic Oath detailed below).
The basis for the medical practicioners views can be found firstly in the Hippocratic Oath. For centuries the Hippocratic Oath has provided a much needed ‘code of practice’ for medical practicioners when concerning ethical issues (in this case abortion). There are two particular elements of the Hippocratic Oath that need to be bared in mind when discussing the issue of abortion. Those two elements are as follows:
1 The regimen I shall adopt shall be for the benefit of the patients according to my ability and judgement and not for their hurt or for any wrong.
2 I will not aid a woman to procure an abortion
It was however decided that these views (contained within the Hippocratic Oath) needed to be revised, not only as RG Jones puts it
‘because of its quaint language, but because, medical practice has moved on from the simple relationship between doctor and patient and the simple range of types of treatment available until recently.’ (7) The views contained within the Hippocratic Oath were then updated by the formation of the World Medical Association in 1947. This led to the Decleration of Geneva with which the International Code of Medical Ethics was based upon. The Decleration of Geneva contains such statements as:
‘I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity… The health of my patient will be my first consideration….. I will retain the upmost respect for human life, from the time of conception, under thereat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.’
Therefore basing their views on the decleration of Geneva medical practicioners allow abortion and their views are cemented in the Abortion Act of 1967 (within Britain), which officially allowed abortion under specific circumstances (see the introduction for the circumstances). Therefore the views of medical practicioners would be incompatible with Christian belief on the sanctity of life (not saying that doctors do not believe in the sanctity of life but they do at the same time try to be fair to the mother) because they never condone abortion.
As mentioned above some doctors find it hard to perform abortions if they themselves believe that abortions should not be allowed. This quote from the Doctors for a Womans choice on Abortion shows the process within their minds that doctors must go through. ‘It is the woman and not the doctor who goes through the abortion operation or continues the pregnancy and has the baby. We believe that it should be for the woman to decide in the light of her own moral beliefs and personal situation. It is not for doctors nor anyone else to impose their moral or religious beliefs on others. No one can know better than the woman herself what is right for her.’ (8)
One of the main weaknesses of the view on abortion taken by medical practicioners would be the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath would be a weakness because at the time it was designed medical knowledge was very primitive, to the extent that they still believed that evil spirits were the cause of all illnesses that affected people. Therefore it is not fair to take the Hippocratic Oath as a basis for moral thinking on the idea of abortion. The question would therefore arise that in light of todays medical advances a woman may find out that the child she is carrying will be born severely handicapped. In that case medical practicioners would see no problem in carrying out an abortion (provided that they met the criteria laid down in the Abortion Act) but if they were to follow the Oath then that child would be born and would probably not live very long (and if they did live for a long time their life would be one of pain and severe physical discomfort). Therefore I believe that in modern day society beliefs on the issue of morality and abortion cannot be based on such an out dated pledge as the Hippocratic Oath.
One main strength of the later revised edition of the Hippocratic Oath (that it took the form of the Decleration of Geneva) would be that it focuses more on the idea of humanity (and that can only be a good thing in today’s society). To go back to the example that was given earlier of the mother carrying the severly disabled child, then following the decleration of Geneva doctors may be more likely to perform an abortion if that were her (the mothers) wish. This is because they are following the laws of humanity, which would tend to make known that although the child has rights the mother also has to be considered. In this case therefore the stress on the mother of carrying the baby and its eventual birth and the period of continuous care that a handicapped child would need, would it the mother did not wish it to be contrary to the laws of humanity. This would be because if the doctor did not perform the abortion then they would cause the child to suffer (because of their severe disability) but would also cause the mother to suffer (from having to care for the child and eventually watching the child die). Therefore it would be more humane (in line with humanity) to allow the woman to have an abortion. This is another reason why the thoughts and actions of medical practicioners by believing in the act of abortion they are in direct contrast with the Christian views on the sanctity of life.
Therefore it is a widely held belief that doctors who do not necessarily believe in performing abortions do and therefore they are immediately at odds with the views of Christians on the Sanctity of Life. Also as mentioned in the quote by the Doctors for a Womans choice on Abortion there is room in the abortion debate for the feeling of the woman for as it states it is she who has to carry on the pregnancy and care for the child after it is born, then it is safe to say that some doctors would think that performing an abortion if the child would be born handicapped would be the right thing to do. They would then yet again be at odds with the Christian view on the sanctity of life.
Ethical philosophers have an advantage that Christians do not have when debating the idea of abortion. The advantage that they have is that they are capable of independent thought and actions, the Christian Church are not able to do this because they take their views from years of history. Whereas Christians take their views from the Bible and medical practicioners take their views from the Hippocratic Oath. Ethical philosophers have no such history to contend with. When debating the idea of abortion their views (ethical philosophers) can take many different forms. One form would be to approach the issue from the viewpoint of situation ethics. This approach is based upon doing the thing that is the most loving thing to do. Therefore as regards to the issue of abortion they are infact doing the most loving thing and for that reason abortion would be permissible. The situation ethics approach would also allow abortion in the case of a woman giving birth to a handicapped child.
Michael Tooley an American philosopher has his own opinions on the idea of abortion, he does not believe that a being (in this case he means a foetus) has a right to life until as he puts it ‘can conceive of themselves as distinct entities, existing over time’ (9). In this view he agrees that abortion should be allowed and he does not see it as murder. Because to be murder, he believes that it would have to be a person and he does not believe that a foetus is a person.
Another ethical approach to the issue of abortion would be the Utilitarian approach. The Utilitarianism was founded by Bentham and Mill and they believed that an action is right if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, when this is applied to the issue of abortion it is a complex approach. On one hand they would say that by protecting the life of the foetus they would be doing the greatest good for the foetus but may not necessarily be the greatest good for the woman and therefore people following the Utilitarian approach could perhaps never actually find a solution to the problem of abortion. In the respect of a woman carrying a severely handicapped child would according to the Utilitarian approach allow abortion because it would be the greatest good for the greatest number by sparing any pain that would be felt by the mother at having to watch the child suffer and eventually probably die due to its handicapp (and the child if it was born throughout its most probably short life).
Another ethical approach that can be used when debating the idea of abortion, this approach is an approach using the ideas of humanists. As Joe Jenkins states ‘humanists regard abortion as better than bringing unwanted babies into the world. It is a mistake to say that humanists are in favour of abortion, no one can be in favour of abortion, which, except in unforeseen circumstances is the result of failed contraception. We think that there will probably always be a certain number of unplanned pregnancies and that the mothers concerned should have the complete choice of either early abortion or keeping the baby.’ (10) This view appears to support the right of the woman to have an abortion if the child was unwanted. Therefore they would also agree that to make a woman give birth to a handicapped child would be wrong because the child would probably be unwanted and thus by actually having it she would be bringing an unwanted child into the world, in that respect going against all of the beliefs of the Humanists.
One weakness of the view put forward by Michael Tooley would be that the Christian Church would seek to disprove his thoughts on the personability (the chance that the foetus is actually a person) of the foetus. They would put forward the idea that the person is created at conception and therefore they would find a flaw with the ideas of Tooley. Another weakness as regards to the works of Tooley would be that how can you be sure that a foetus cannot conceive of itself as being a separate entity and having a place in time independent of its mother. This I believe is the main weakness behind the ideas of Tooley. One of the weaknesses of the ethical approach to the issue of abortion that relies upon utilitarianism is that it is an ambiguous approach and it is hard to come to any conclusions.
A strength of the approach put forward by Tooley is that it asserts the womans rights and in doing so his approach to the issue of abortion comes into line with the Medical practicioners view on abortion. By however asserting the womans rights he is going against the sanctity of life of the foetus. But at the same time he is underlyning the sanctity of the womans life therefore his view is a complex one. Because of its complexity it agrees with the Christian Church (because of the sanctity of life but only of the mother) and disagrees with them at the same time (because of the lack of recognition of the sanctity of the life of the unborn child). A strength of the Utilitarian approach to the issue of abortion is that it is not concerned with Christian doctrine or historical context (as the medical practicioners approach is ie the Hippocratic Oath) is that it can concentrate on the health of the mother and also of the foetus therefore when a Utilitarian makes a descision then it is a balanced and fair approach. A strength of all three of the ethical philosophers/approaches (mentioned above Tooley, Utilitarians and Humanists) would be that they are all non religious approaches and therefore it allows non religious people a port of call so to speak when debating what to do if they are having problems coming to a decision on moral issues such as abortion.
Therefore the ethical approaches to the issue of abortion may be incompatible with the sanctity of life so highly treasured by Christians. The ethical philosophers would therefore allow a woman to have an abortion if she were expecting to give birth to a handicapped child.
Therefore in this essay I have put forward the views/teachings of Christians, medical practicioners and ethical philosophers and I have applied those views/teachings to the issue of a woman having an abortion if her child will be born handicapped. Hopefully I have adequately shown how there are many differing views and no moral absolute that people can turn to, to enable them to make what would be deemed by society to be the right decision, this is because they all come from different religious/moral background and this is reflective of modern day society and helps to explain why the issue of abortion continues to be a much debated about issue by Philosophers/scholars, religious teachers, doctors and ordinary people.
Therefore in conclusion throughout this essay I have put forward views from Christians, medical practicioners and ethical philosophers on the sanctity of life and on the morality of abortions. Although all the parties (Christians, medical practicioners and ethical philosophers) do not agree on one common teaching about the morality of abortions, they do however all promote the idea of the wonderment of life and of creation. I believe that abortion in some cases should be allowed and in that view I am supported by the Protestant Church. However I believe that the mothers life also has to be taken into account and in that case my argument is supported both by medical practicioners and ethical philosophers. Therefore as I have shown the issue of abortion is a varied and complex subject containing many issules and differing viewpoints that all need to be handled differently. Each of the parties mentioned (Christians, medical practicioners and ethical philosophers) in this essay all have strengths and weaknesses inherent in their particular viewpoints/arguments. Therefore as the question that this essay is based on would tend to suggest there are some people within the three branches mentioned (Christians, medical practicioners and ethical philosophers) who would agree with the Christian view on the sanctity of life. I believe in conclusion that the issue of abortion (the rights and wrongs of it) will ever be solved or the sanctity of life will ever be a universal theme, but it is important when making laws on issues like abortion that the Government stay above the restraints of Christian doctrine and ethical considerations. It is important particularily in the age that we are now living in to respect the rights of all the parties involved (ie mother and child) but to also act out of love for both parties in that regards it would be as best to take a Humanistic view on the issue of abortion, this would ensure that unwanted babies do not get born into an already overpopulated world. As I mentioned in the introduction it is also important that women are allowed to have abortions because if they do no they will only resort to having backstreet abortion because that would be more preferable to them than having the baby. The danger is as Humanists sates that by not allowing abortion more unwanted children will be brought into the world, ‘humanists regard abortion as better than bringing unwanted babies into the world. Also now that we are beginning to question our place in society and nature (brought about by all the advances in technology especially medical technology) it is perhaps as Peter Singer states ‘time to reassess our belief in the sanctity of life of the members of our species.’ (11)
- Peter Singer, ‘Writings on an ethical issue’
- Joe Jenkins ‘Introducing Moral issues’ pg 77
- Joe Jenkins ‘Contemporary Moral Issues’ pg 99
- Robin Gill ‘Textbook of Christian Ethics’
- Victor W Watton ‘Religion and Life’ pg 84
- James and Audrey Bentley ‘Contemporary Issues a Christian View’ pg 124
- RG Jones ‘A Textbook of Christian Ethics’
- Joe Jenkins ‘Introducing Moral Issues’ pg 77
- Peter Singer ‘Writings on an Ethical issue’ pg 128
10.Joe Jenkins ‘Introducing Moral Issues’ pg 77
11.Peter Singer ‘Writings on an Ethical Issue’ pg 130
Bibliography
Introducing Moral Issues
Joe Jenkins
Heinemann
1994
Oxford
Pg’s 76-77
Writings On An Ethical Issue
Peter Singer
Harper Collins
2000
Pg’s 135-137
Groundwork Of Christian Ethics
Richard G Jones
Epworth Press
1984
London
Ethics, A Contemporary Introduction
Hans J Gensler
Routledge
1998
A Textbook Of Christian Ethics
Robin Gill
New Revised Edition
1995
Scotland
Pg’s 118-119
Religion And Life
Victor W Watton
Hodder and Stoughton
2001
Pg’s 82-83
Contemporary Moral Issues
Joe Jenkins
Third Edition
Heinemann
1997
Oxford
Pg’s 98-99
Christianity In Today’s World
John Murrary
1999
Pg’s 12-13
Notes on philosophy of Religion and ethics
Abortion and IVF
Peter Vardy
Issues facing Christians today
John Stott
Marshalls
1984
Hampshire
Pg’s 280-297
The Puzzle Of Ethics
Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch
Fount
1994
Glasgow
Pg’s 153-164
Contemporary Issues a Christian View
James and Audrey Bentley
Longman
1989
Pg’s 124-125