The Sanctity of Life, Abortion and Euthanasia
The Value of Human Life: A Universal Question
When does human life begin? When, if ever, is it acceptable to end it? In the UK, abortion has been legal (under certain conditions) since 1967, and the debate about assisted dying continues in Parliament. Most major religions take a position on both questions, ranging from absolute prohibition to qualified permission.
The central tension runs between two principles. The sanctity of life argument holds that human life has an intrinsic, inviolable worth that cannot be forfeited by circumstance. Against this stands the quality of life argument: that what matters is not merely biological existence but whether life is experienced as meaningful and free from excessive suffering.
The sanctity of life holds that every human life has intrinsic, God-given worth from conception to natural death. The quality of life view holds that what matters is whether life contains sufficient wellbeing and freedom from suffering to be worth living. These two principles underpin every religious and non-religious argument on abortion and euthanasia.
Legal and Human Rights Context
On euthanasia, the Dignity in Dying campaign argues that individuals should have the right to end their own suffering. The ‘Right to Choose’ framing in the abortion debate likewise centres on personal autonomy over a religious conception of sanctity. Both campaigns reflect a wider shift in how the state and public discourse frame bodily autonomy.
The Abortion Act 1967 made abortion legal in Great Britain (not Northern Ireland, where different legislation applied until 2019), provided two doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy would involve a greater risk to the woman’s physical or mental health, or to any existing children, than terminating it. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 later set the time limit for this ground at 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, abortion is permitted only in exceptional circumstances — for example, where continuing the pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or where there is a serious foetal abnormality. The 24-week threshold roughly corresponds with the point of foetal viability outside the womb, though this point has shifted as neonatal medicine has advanced. The law does not frame abortion as a right but as a permitted medical procedure under defined conditions — a distinction that both pro-choice and pro-life campaigners continue to contest.
Christianity and Catholicism
Christianity teaches that human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27 — imago Dei). Genesis 1:31 records God declaring all he had made ‘very good’, and Jeremiah 1:5 describes God knowing the prophet before his formation in the womb — both verses are read as affirming the value of life from its earliest stages.
The Catholic Church takes the most explicit position. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2270, states that human life must be respected and protected from the moment of conception. On euthanasia, Evangelium Vitae (Pope John Paul II, 1995), paragraph 65, teaches that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent person is gravely wrong, even to relieve suffering. The Church supports palliative care and the Sacrament of the Sick for the dying. Some other Christian denominations have expressed qualified openness to assisted dying in limited circumstances.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2270 states: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.” This makes abortion morally impermissible for Catholics regardless of circumstances. Evangelium Vitae (1995), paragraph 65, extends the same absolute prohibition to euthanasia, describing it as a “grave violation of the law of God.”
Judaism
Jewish law (halakha) centres on pikuach nefesh — preserving life overrides almost all other commandments, including Shabbat (Talmud Bavli Yoma 84b). The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 teaches that whoever destroys a single soul destroys an entire world; whoever saves one saves an entire world.
On abortion, the Mishnah Oholot 7:6 rules that where the mother’s life is endangered the foetus’s life may be sacrificed to save hers — the foetus is not a full legal person. Most Orthodox authorities permit abortion only to save the mother; many Conservative and Reform rabbis permit it more broadly. Judaism does not share the Catholic absolute prohibition. On euthanasia, the tradition overwhelmingly forbids actively hastening death, though there is more flexibility on withdrawing treatment that merely prolongs dying.
Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, and different movements apply halakha with differing degrees of strictness. Orthodox Judaism generally holds that abortion is prohibited except where the mother’s life is in genuine danger — the foetus has sanctity but does not yet hold the full legal status of a person (nefesh). Conservative Judaism tends to permit abortion in a somewhat wider range of cases, including serious foetal abnormalities or severe risk to the mother’s mental health. Reform Judaism places considerable weight on the woman’s autonomy and wellbeing, and generally supports her right to make the decision in consultation with her rabbi and healthcare providers. Across all branches, the view that the foetus is a potential life deserving serious moral consideration — not a mere clump of cells — is shared; the disagreement is about how much that potential life’s weight can be overridden by other considerations. In exam answers, this internal diversity is a strength: it shows you understand that “Judaism teaches X” is always a simplification.
Islam
Islam teaches that human life is a trust (amanah) from Allah and that only Allah has the right to give or take life. The Qur’an (5:32) teaches that to save one life is as if to save all of humanity; Qur’an 6:151 commands: do not kill your children.
Most Islamic scholars regard abortion as forbidden (haram) after ensoulment — when Allah breathes a soul into the foetus (Qur’an 32:9). Different schools debate when ensoulment occurs, but abortion after this point is regarded as very grave; some scholars permit it in very limited circumstances before that point. Most Islamic authorities forbid euthanasia, seeing it as usurping Allah’s sovereignty over life and death.
Hinduism
Hindu teaching sees all life as sacred because it contains atman — the universal soul. The Bhagavad Gita (2:17) teaches that the eternal soul is indestructible, passing through many lives (samsāra); killing interrupts a soul’s journey, not merely a biological life.
The principle of ahimsa (non-violence, Yajur Veda 40–43) leads most Hindu authorities to oppose abortion and euthanasia, as both involve deliberate harm to a being containing atman. There is no single central authority issuing binding rulings, and in practice attitudes vary widely; the question of whether withdrawing futile treatment differs morally from active killing is debated.
Sikhism
Sikhs believe human life is a precious gift from God — an opportunity to draw closer to the divine and escape samsāra. The soul in all living beings is universal (Guru Granth Sahib 441), and Sikh Gurus explicitly condemned female infanticide. Sikh teaching generally discourages abortion, regarding it as interference with God-given natural processes, though many Sikhs weigh individual circumstances. On euthanasia, the consensus is that hastening death is wrong, though withdrawing futile treatment that merely prolongs dying is more permissible.
Buddhism
Buddhism’s first of the Five Precepts is to refrain from taking life. Both abortion and euthanasia involve the intentional ending of life, violating the Precept and creating negative kamma. Buddhist teaching is not absolutist, however: the Dalai Lama has suggested that karuṇā (compassion) — working with dukkha rather than simply prolonging it — may make euthanasia an act of compassion in some circumstances. Theravāda teaching is generally against abortion, since conception marks the start of a new life in the rebirth cycle, but there is no central institution issuing binding rulings and positions vary.
Non-Religious Views
Peter Singer’s concept of speciesism challenges the automatic special status of human life: what matters morally, he argues, is an organism’s capacity for conscious experience, not its species. A foetus at an early stage may therefore have less moral status than a developed non-human animal. Dignity in Dying and similar campaigns use a situationist approach: rather than applying an absolute rule, they ask what is best for this particular person in these circumstances.
Humanists argue that the emphasis should be on ‘life before death’ — improving the quality of the life that is lived. On abortion, many Humanists support a woman’s right to choose. On euthanasia, they support the right of individuals facing terminal suffering to choose the timing and manner of their death, seeing this as an expression of human dignity and self-determination.