In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is clearly stated
‘You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish’
This is the fundamental position of the Catholic Church; they again use the authority of the bible (the fifth commandment)
‘ You shall not kill’.
The embryo is considered and innocent; within the bible Jesus says
‘Let the little children come to me’
Which shows children have a special place, therefore Catechism of the Catholic Church states
‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous. The deliberate murder of an innocent person is a grave contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule of the creator’
Abortion doesn’t follow Gods law and doesn’t respect human life and society with its effects. The Catholic Church does understand the need for people to have abortion in certain situations such as rape or the possible severe harm or fatality to the mother.
For example a 17 year old girl is walking back from school and she is attacked and raped and realizes she is pregnant. When she appears in great distress to here Roman Catholic parents. There parental instincts will be to end their daughter’s mental and physical anguish. However, their religious views will ultimately cause great mental and emotional pain to both the family and the daughter.
Therefore the Roman Catholic Church did understand these limitations of love toward a rape victim’s baby and wrote the doctrine of double effect in which the lining of the uterus is scraped removing the developing embryo. This will be the effect of the primary goal of addressing the mothers suffering. Thereby it doesn’t go against catholic teaching because the intention was not to kill the foetus.
Other Christians such as Protestants fully believe in the sanctity of life as it was written in genesis 1; 27;
‘So god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created man.’
Therefore they do regard a foetus as a person with the potential ability to form relationship with society and god.
However they are more sympathetic and understanding to the trappings and problems of the world. Although they do not condone abortion they do understand that for the preservation of the mothers sanity and physical health more love would be shown to terminate the pregnancy if adoption is not an option. The Protestant Church focuses more on supporting and advising members about possible abortion rather than take an absolute stance that does not represent the world and life.
Euthanasia is also considered of equal importance as abortion it raises up many of the same issues but also differs in many aspects.
Euthanasia is defined as
The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.
The Roman Catholic Church again takes an absolute stance against euthanasia. They base their arguments on the respect and sanctity of human life.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
‘God alone is the lord of life from its beginning to its end. No one can claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being’.
The sick or handicapped according catechism of the Catholic Church warrant special treatment. Because Catholics view their illness as a blessing as god has allowed this to happen to you because he thinks you have the mental, physical, and spiritual strength to take this burden. Consequently Catholics believe euthanasia is a short cut out of life. The death of Jesus is used as an example of a painful death in which life was lived to the end. Again if we are to emulate Christ’s life we should live it to its end, and experience part of his pain, which he undertook, for our sins. Euthanasia also challenges a person’s faith, as we believe that god doesn’t have the power to heal our illness and for that reason doesn’t only affect ourselves but society because Christians are representative of their faith. As a result euthanasia is a public declaration of one’s loss of faith in gods power.
A protestant view is in agreement on the sanctity of life and its opposition to god’s law. On the other hand they do take on board the quality of life of the patient as well. They believe that if a patient were to ask to stop medication thereby bringing death quicker, the church is more understanding of this and view. Hence this is less of an offence. In this situation they would again support and advise.
However there are certain ethical theories that are used in both the protestant church and Roman Catholic Church. The protestant church do use the ethical theory Situation ethics by Joseph Fletcher. His ethical theory states that every situation is unique and the best decision is one showing the most love. So euthanasia can be justified because it is showing the patient love in preventing unnecessary pain, anguish to the family.
It can also be applied to abortion in which the parents will assess if their child will be living in a world which a can provide the love needed to ensure its survival.
The Roman Catholic Church uses the ethical theory of Natural Law whereby everything should be allowed to take its own natural course, without intervention. If god is against it e.g. abortion or euthanasia he will act in his own interests and our fallibility will not cause complications.
B1)
I have chosen a Kantian view. The Kantian ethical theory is based on autonomy where you yourself use reason to govern you're life as a moral being. This then makes void all religious rules, guides, texts and God. Therefore there are no external authorities which can influence you're decisions e.g experience or human instincts., e.g. self-interest
Now purged of these influences Kant says when one meets an ethical or moral problem out of moral duty one must make a maxim but use the categorical imperative, a set of absolute rules to fit and guide all maxims made
The formula of the Law of Nature
“Always act in such a way that you can will that the maxim behind your action can be willed as a universal law.
The Practical Imperative
“Always act in such a way, whether in your own person or in the person of another, never simply as a means, but always as an end.”
The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends
“So act as if you were through
Your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.”
This should then allow you to act on the most moral choice according to Kant. Others in the same situation through their reasoning arrive at the same maxim resulting in the same course of action.
Applying Kantian ethics to abortion and euthanasia would involve creating a maxim free from emotion. Therefore let us set a scenario. A woman is pregnant and finds out through a medical break through that her child has a fatal disease and will not live past the age of 9.
From a Kant perspectives the mother must firstly over look love for her child and any instinctual emotions and with her rationality not self-interest make a maxim using the categorical imperative. She has a possibility two maxims
1) Never kill
2) Always kill
Because Kant demands through his positive legacy the act of respecting other human beings the first maxim therefore the first maxim more is logical and more deontological
to society.
However, there is no grey in the apriori Kantian theory, if a maxim has been made no matter what the circumstances, the maxim should be your only influence on your decision.
With this theory in making your decision no other forms of ethics, religion or instincts affect your actions. Therefore personhood or commands from god do not affect your decision.
B2) A Kantian would not support any religious argument simply on the ground that Kant refused to acknowledge religious texts or gods as an influence on morality. He did however believe his categorical imperative was suitable guide. Therefore methods cannot agree. For example the Roman Catholic Church will be influenced by god, the Pope, and written literature such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When facing moral problems such abortion rates increasing in Brazil. A Kantian will act according to the categorical imperative and rationality. Their maxim will be universal so others will come to use this same maxim because of it is logical. The maxim in this situation may be don’t murder.
There are similarities in methods and influences Such as the fact that both moral theories are apriori. E.g. intentions are what make the act moral or immoral. For example if someone went to get an abortion but the instruments failed causing the child to survive. This is not a moral act because the child survived, because within your mind it was intended to kill the baby so your action was intended to be immoral therefore it was.
In addition it was immoral within the Kantian theory because neither the categorical imperative nor one’s duty was not addressed. If the maxim were against murder the act would have been immoral immediately regardless of the circumstance because a maxim is unquestionable and absolute if the categorical imperative is used.
Circumstances do affect more liberal Christian churches such as C of E or some protestant groups. The use of situation ethics (Fletcher) does effect the moral choices of some denominations as each for example euthanasia case will be assessed differently and therefore advice will be different in each case.
A Roman Catholic influenced ethical theory is natural law where in the case of euthanasia; they will support natural death taking place, as this is nature’s natural course. Yet question are raised weather medical resources should be used, as this is interfering with nature’s natural course?
Let us take a hypothetical scenario and analyse the most moral choice using all three religious and ethical theories.
A mother is the only financial support for her 3 children. She is involved in a car crash, which leaves her brain dead. It cost the family £3500 a week to keep her on life support. Should the family therefore take her off life support in effect letting her die? Or keep her attached in the hope she might regain consciousness?
Both religious churches will seek advice from both god and their religious text e.g’. love thy neighbour’ or ‘do not kill’ and ethical principals especially personhood, what constitutes a person? Nonetheless they differ in their decision. A roman catholic would argue that if we take her of life support we are undermining god omnipotence and families faith, consequently would aid the family in keeping her on life support.
on the other hand if natural law is of greater influence then a minority will suggest that she should be taken of life support because it is interfering with life natural course.
A protestant will argue that as well as consulting both god and their religious text, her unique situation is also of great importance therefore they may opt to allow her to die because of the hardship emotionally, physically, and financially her family will is going through. Although if god they feel has told them to leave thing as they are it will be done because god is of supreme importance.
A Kantian will dismiss all forms of ethical and religious influences, and out of duty form a maxim to act in the most moral way using rationality. The most rational maxims may be, don’t kill or always kill. However, Kant said maxims should be made with three postulates of practical reason in mind
- God
- Freedom
- And immorality
Therefore the bad maxim will be dismissed and the mother will not be allowed to die.
.
