The Catholic Church, today, believes life begins at conception, although they have not always upheld this belief. Aquinas argued that a foetus became a human being through a process called ensoulment, which he developed from the theories of Aristotle. He believed that the male foetus became a human being at 40 days and the female at 90 days. He, therefore, may not have objected to abortion, as long as it took place before the ensoulment of the foetus.
St. Thomas Aquinas argued that the foetus is not a ‘human person’ at conception, as ensoulment cannot occur until the body is relative to the size of the soul. From this theory, Aquinas formed an idea of various stages in which a foetus develops; the vegetative soul; the animal soul and the human soul.
It could be argued that Aquinas’ theories support abortion. Humans kill animals for food, recreation and fashion every day. If a foetus has a ‘vegetative’ or ‘animal’ soul, it could be compared to an animal. If the Christian faith followed Aquinas’ theories, they could not condemn abortion in these stages, as that would be to condemn the slaughter of animals, which they do not.
There is also a process called quickening. This is the time when the baby first moves in the womb. It is supported by the experience of John the Baptist’s mother, described in the Bible:
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
This quotation suggests that, in the womb, the foetus had a real identity, as it was known to the mother. It could be said that the movement of the foetus is proof that it is a life; it could also be said that the movement is a form of communication, by the foetus to the mother.
Modern Roman Catholic teaching, however, is that the foetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and that its right to life is equal to that of the mother. This has developed beyond the above theories for a number of reasons; there doesn’t appear to be any particular significant development to indicate that a major change has taken place that suggests that a foetus has been ensouled. The church could not come to agreement of when the foetus is classed as a life, so came to the conclusion that a foetus must be a fully human person from conception. There was also evidence in the bible that suggested God created a human person at conception:
Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.
This quotation suggests that a soul is existent even before conception. Therefore, it could be argued, that if the foetus is a person from conception, the act of abortion would be a violation of the sanctity of life, as the foetus is a life from conception. The Catholic Church believe a foetus is a person from conception; that is why they uphold the belief that, even in the case of abortion, sanctity of life should be regarded as a moral absolute.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church follows natural law. They believe it is an absolute form of morality. According to natural law, everything has a natural purpose, every object and every action has a specific final purpose. When applying natural law to the action of sex, the natural purpose of sex is pro-creation. To kill a foetus through the act of abortion is to disrupt natural law. The Church believe that to go against the laws of nature by disrupting a series of events or, consequence of such events, is to go against the laws of God himself, therefore, it is always wrong, regardless of the situation. St. Augustine defined God’s eternal law as:
The reason or the will of God, who commands us to respect the natural order and forbids us to disturb it.
The natural law is an expression of God’s eternal law according to St. Augustine.
Four principles that outline the Christian rejection of abortion were developed by David Smith. He stated that God alone is the lord of life and death; humans have no right to take life; human life begins at conception; abortion at any stage is the murder of an innocent.
The National Rights to Life Group of America also believe that life begins at conception, and many Christians argue that everyone has been a human embryo; therefore, an embryo should be given the status of a human person to protect it. As an example, Hardley Arkes pointed out:
...The question, however, is not what the organism looks like, but what it is....Some people may think it looks like a tadpole – but it is never the equivalent of a tadpole, even when it looks like one...This ‘tadpole’ is likely to come out with hands and feet and with a capacity to conjugate verbs.
The point Arkes is trying to make here, is that an embryo may not look like a fully formed human but it will become one. No matter what one may argue, this embryo will develop into a human baby and will be able to feel. You could argue that some people believe that an animal has not a great a right to life as it looks different, it can’t communicate to let you know if it feels sadness or pain, but that does not mean it doesn’t feel. It is the same with an embryo. It is something you cannot communicate with, something which is out of sight and, therefore, out of mind. This does not mean it is non-existent, or doesn’t have an equal right to life as any other human. If Einstein’s embryo had been destroyed, Einstein would never have existed.
There is also an early Christian document, called the Didache, which specifically condemns abortion:
You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb.
Abortion is also condemned by the Islamic faith, on the principle of Sanctity of life. In the Hadith; a narration about the life of a prophet, and what he did or did not approve of, it states:
No one who severs the relationship of the womb will enter paradise.
Other Christians believe that to destroy the gift of human life, is to mark an attack on the creator himself, whose image the man bears. They believe God has an intimacy with the human race, unlike the rest of creation, as in Genesis 2.7; it is God who breathes life into man. This gift is precious and to destroy this gift is an act of appalling disrespect.
There are certain groups of the Christian Church, however, that state they are not fully opposed to abortion. Liberal Protestant Christians, for example, oppose abortion in principle, but believe that in some circumstances, abortion can be condoned e.g. when the mother’s life is in jeopardy, or if the mother has fallen pregnant as she is a victim of rape. Therefore, these groups would not believe sanctity of life is an absolute moral value.
Melvin Tinker states that sanctity of life is a fundamental value, not an absolute value, and that it is a constant misrepresentation of the Christian faith that they believe sanctity of life is an absolute ethic. For example, he states that Jesus Christ gave his life for what he considered to be a greater cause (this appears to be a very utilitarian approach, with reference to the greatest good for the greatest number), and also encouraged others to give their lives for the kingdom of God.
It could be said, however, that Jesus Christ, being God personified, had the right to take his own life, as God is the provider of life and therefore can take it away. This suggests that Jesus had this right to give life (for example, Jesus raised the dead on three separate occasions, one of those being Lazarus) and take life, and, therefore, was not demeaning sanctity of life as an absolute ethic.
One could also argue that Tinker is contradicting himself slightly. The purpose of Jesus’ death was to save the lives of others, so, it could be said, the principle of sanctity of life was upheld in this instance.
Those who favour abortion tend to use the argument of person-hood in defence of what they believe. Judith Jarvis Thompson accepts that there’s continuous development of the foetus, but there is a point where it isn’t a human being. She used the analogy of an acorn to back up her theory, in which she states that an acorn grows into an Oak tree, as an ovum grows into a person; but an acorn is not an Oak tree, as a fertilised ovum is not a person.
The point that Thompson is trying to make here is quite self explanatory, a foetus is not a person, but it could be argued that this does not outline when abortion is a violation of the sanctity of life, or if it always is, is it a moral absolute? The problem is, although the foetus looks different and has a different name, it does not prove or disprove whether the foetus has a soul, or when it can be called a life. If you destroyed the acorn, it would never become an oak tree, and to destroy a foetus would be to prevent the life of a person, so is this not the same as taking a life away?
It is unclear whether Thompson could have deontological views, as she believes a foetus is not a life until a certain point, so therefore, from her point of view, abortion would not be a violation of the sanctity of life as a moral absolute. On the other hand, abortion does prevent a life forming, and therefore, it could be argued that it is going against the sanctity of life; however, if one argues this, one could also dispute the morality of contraception.
It was stated by Jonathan Glover that to call a foetus a person, at the point of conception stretches the term beyond normal boundaries. He looked at the point of view that personhood should possibly be given when the foetus can survive outside the womb. The problem with this, however, is that due to modern technology and constant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge, the age a foetus can survive outside the womb is becoming earlier. There is also the fact that there are people who cannot survive on their own at the age of 30, for example, as they need to rely on machines for things such as dialysis. Would this mean that they do not have the status of a person? The answer is no, they have equal rights to any other human being, whether disabled or not.
Another critic who argued that birth, rather than some earlier point, marks the beginning of true moral status, was Mary Ann Warren. She stated that if a foetus was a person, then so too were sperm and ovum. This idea was rejected by Glover, as the likeness between a later foetus and premature baby is undeniable.
I would also argue that a sperm or ovum cannot ever become a person independently, therefore could not be classed as persons, as to kill a sperm would not prevent the formation of a human being. Both Glover and Warren would disregard sanctity of life as a moral absolute, as they condone abortion. It is very unlikely that they are religious, so therefore would not believe in sanctity of life.
The issue of abortion transcends moral groups and philosophers, and was a very delicate subject within politics. The legalisation of abortion in England, in 1967, caused quite a debate among MP’s in the House of Commons, who had very different views on the subject. One of the most famous statements from the debate came from MP, Mrs Jill McKnight, who stated:
Would the sponsors of the bill think it right to kill a baby they can see?...Why then do they think it right to kill one they cannot see? Babies are not like bad teeth to be jerked out just because they cause suffering.
This is a very valid argument from the MP. It could be argued that because we cannot see the suffering of a foetus, it does not mean it does not feel. Abortion can be carried out up until the 24th week of pregnancy, but babies have been known to survive at this age. Would it be condoned if a baby outside the womb at this age was killed? It would not, as it would be classed as infanticide, which is punishable by law, and it would also, most certainly, be seen as a moral absolute that one should never kill a baby, no matter what the circumstances.
The ethical theory of Utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham. He stated that:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do
Bentham was a hedonist, and therefore believed that mankind should determine their actions on the principle of how much pleasure, or how little pain, would result from it.
Utilitarianism can be summarised by the belief of ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’. It is a teleological theory, so therefore looks at the consequences of an action to determine whether it is right or wrong. It also means that a utilitarian does not believe in moral absolutes. In the case of abortion, it could be suggested that if the mother’s happiness would be greater if she had an abortion, then it is the right thing to do. However, the foetus may be considered human and it’s happiness should be accounted for but this does not necessarily make abortion wrong. For example, if the birth of a child would seriously affect the mother’s family for the worse, then abortion may be the option that brings the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism would not see the sanctity of life as a moral absolute, and therefore would not see abortion as a violation of the sanctity of life.
Situation Ethics is also a teleological theory, developed by Joseph Fletcher, which suggests that there is only one rule that humanity should follow, and that is to do the loving thing. Joseph Fletcher believed that love and justice are the same; He draws out the idea here that love must be careful. The most loving course of action to take is decided by looking at the situation. Therefore, Situation Ethics would not have a specific view on abortion as it would depend on specific circumstances, but, to re-iterate what Fletcher says, one must be careful in deciding what the loving thing to do is, although Situation Ethics does not follow moral absolutes, and therefore, would never fully condemn abortion.
One difficulty with these ethical theories, however, is that one can never fully predict the consequences of an action, and although one may believe that an act may have the most loving consequences, or be the greatest good for the greatest number, one could never know for sure.
Sanctity of life is only specific to religious groups, and is therefore difficult to apply to everyone. If one believes in God, then one must believe that life is a sacred gift from God, and therefore, should regard the sanctity of life as a moral absolute, and not a fundamental value. This is due to views possibly becoming hypocritical or contradicting. For example, one cannot believe that God is the sole creator and destroyer of life, and also believe that abortion can be condoned under the circumstances of risk to the mother’s life. This is because the taking of the child’s life would be considered as ‘playing God’, and also a disruption of the natural order. In the scenario, the foetus was conceived naturally, and in the eyes of the church, is the purpose of sexual intercourse. If the mother is at risk of dying during child birth, it is not the place of human beings to choose who has the greater right to live. That is God’s choice alone.
On the other hand, Non-religious groups cannot consider the sanctity of life a moral absolute, as the sanctity of life cannot apply. This is because to believe in sanctity of life, one must believe in God. It could be argued, however, that a non-religious person could see the value of life, or the preservation of life as a moral absolute, as this would not suggest a connection with a deity.
It could also be said that those who condone abortion before they believe the foetus to be a human person, can believe in the sanctity of life as a moral absolute. This is due to the fact that one cannot violate the sanctity of life if one does not actually take a life. To rephrase, abortion of a foetus that has not obtained a soul, or is not classed as a person in the beholders eye, would not disregard sanctity of life as a moral absolute, as technically, the foetus is not alive, and therefore, a life has not been taken.
Life is also difficult to define, as plants and bacteria can be described as alive, yet to kill plants or bacteria would not be seen as a violation of the sanctity of life as a moral absolute. There has never been any consideration to regard a plant’s life as sacred. This is due to biblical teachings, which state that God’s creation of humanity was personal, and it is said that man bears God’s image, therefore, it may be more suitable to talk about the sanctity of Human life.
I believe that the views of Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics are the strongest and most reasonable. I do not think that one can dismiss abortion, stating that sanctity, or value, of life is a moral absolute, without looking at the circumstances. As an example, if a thirteen year old girl was violently raped, and as a result became pregnant, I believe abortion in this circumstance could be condoned. One may argue that abortion does not solve the issue of rape, but in my opinion, each situation should be judged individually. Going through the experience of rape and then having to enter into parenthood, when she is, most likely, not ready for such a responsibility, I believe a girl in this situation should have the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby. Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics would also condone abortion in this situation, if it was the most loving thing to do, and resulted in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Therefore, I do not believe sanctity of life should be regarded as a moral absolute, however, I believe the taking of a life can only be condoned in the most extreme, or difficult, circumstances.
Oxford dictionary definition.
Macintyre, Alasdair. ‘After Virtue’.
www.jesuschristsaviour.net/ethics.
St. Augustine. ‘De Libero Arbitrio, Book I’.
Bowie, Robert. ‘Ethical Studies, 2nd Edition’.
Arkes, H. ‘First Things’.
Didache. (obtained from )
M.M. Azamis. ‘Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature’.
Thompson, Judith Jarvis. ‘A defence of Abortion’.
Glover, Jonathan. ‘Causing Death and Saving Lives’.
Bowie, Robert. ‘Ethical Studies, 2nd Edition’.
Knight, Jill. House of Commons debate, 1966.
Bentham, Jeremy. ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’.
