Abortion in the Spotlight

The issue of abortion has been in the news recently for two reasons. First it appears that some people on the UK have been allowed abortions on the grounds of the gender of the unborn child. Secondly The Journal of Medical Ethics has published a paper where it is claimed that infanticide (killing a new born baby) is morally no different to abortion; so if abortion is allowed, why not infanticide?

On the first issue let's just clarify UK law on abortion. Basically an abortion is allowed if there is a significant risk of the baby being born disabled or if having the baby will adversley effect the women's, or existing children's, physical or mental well being. This last reason essentially means we have abortion on demend in our country. If a woman says that, at this stage in her life, she could not cope with a baby, then she can have an abortion.

Why, then, the moral outrage expressed by some who support the above, but find the idea of gender selective abortions unacceptable? Is there any significant difference? In both cases an unwanted foetus is aborted.

There are clearly some instances when the reasons for abortions are obvious and well supported, such as in the case of pregnancy through rape, and many, but not all, would agree that there is a significant difference between this and a gender selective abortion.

However is it really right that a women who knowingly didn't use contraception and then gets an abortion on grounds that she couldn't cope with a baby can have abortion, when another women, say with 2 sons who really wants a girl, cannot have one if she finds out she is expecting another boy. It is hard to see how the behaviour of the woman in the first example is more morally acceptable than the behaviour of the woman in the second.

On the other hand there are Pro-Life groups who argue that all abortion is wrong; it is killing a human being and should never be done. While this view can be condemned for lacking compassion, especially when the pregnancy may be as a result of rape, it does not suffer from the moral ambiguities that our current abortion laws seem to allow.

The second issue seems even more contentious. Can anyone really be arguing that killing babies is acceptable?! Well the answer is yes, and here is why; the reason abortions are allowed is because the foetus is not a human person in the sense that it cannot survive independantly, it cannot communicate with any level of sophistication, it has very little in the way of rational abilities or self awareness. The trouble is that these things could also be said of a newborn baby - it can't survive independantly for any length of time; left alone it will die, and at this stage in life, it does not possess the communicative or rational abilities associated with being human. Therefore, the argument goes, if it's okay to abort a foetus for certain reasons, which many people say it is, then it is okay to kill a new born baby for the same reasons. This is actually not a new arguement and the likes of Peter Singer have been advocating it for years.

Interestingly enough it is also the view held by many Pro-Life supporters but for the opposite reason. They would say that as there is no real difference between an unborn and a new born child so it is therefore wrong to have an abortion, just as it is wrong to kill a baby.

These issues are very complex and contentious but they do highlight the importance of ethics in the real world.

For more on gender abortions click here.
For more on the infanticide issue click here.

Homosexuality, Church of England and the Bible

Discussions and interviews regarding the issue of homosexulity in the Anglican Church. Also has some interesting discussions about how Bible references regarding homosexuality can be understood.

Discrimination and Equality - Not as simple as it seems!

In a recent news story we see that a devout Christian couple have been refused as foster carers becasue their religious beliefs prevent them from teaching potential foster children that homosexuality is acceptable.
"I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual."
Eunice Johns
It is clear that this has taken place to prevent 'sexual discrimination' but it has led to claims of 'religious discrimination'. That the only reason they cannot foster is because of their religious beliefs.
Whatever one's personal views on homosexuality or religous views towards it are, this is certainly a very contentious issue.
It is only becasue the couple are open about thier beliefs that this has become an issue. One wonders how many people have been allowed to foster and adopt that hold views, that they will teach to their children, that could be deemed discriminatory. One does not need to belong to a particular group or religion to be homophobic, racist, sexist etc and to then pass these beliefs on to the children on your care.
Indeed how does one decide what an acceptable belief is? If it simply a matter of what the government finds acceptable, we could find ourselves living in George Orwell's '1984', where we are told what to believe or else! If however we say it is about what the majority of people find acceptable there are huge practical implications of how this would be discerned and this also assumes that the majority of people are in some sense morally enlightened.
It should also be noted that not all Christians hold strong beleifs against homosexuality. Catholic teaching is that being homosexual is not wrong, although practising it is. The Anglican Church is currently debating how homosexuality should be viewed, with many arguing that, providing it is a committed, loving relationship, (marriage) it is acceptable, while others do regard it as a grave sin .
The truth is that just about every parent in the world will be teaching their children something that someone else finds offensive or wrong - it is the nature of the diverse species that we are.
How we then try to apply this to fostering and adoption laws is a very complicated question, and one to which I do not have the answer!
For more on this story click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.
For more on the right to a child click here.

The Dangers of Relativism

Prominent American Atheist Sam Harris discusses the dangers of relativism. Interestingly it is religions that normally argue in favour of an absolute morality but Harris turns this on its head.

While I think he raises some very interesting and insightful points I can't help thinking he had somewhat of an anti-Islamic agenda. I would feel more comfortable if he had used more of a range of idealogical beliefs, both secular and religious (like the comparison between the veil and the magazine covers), and that this would have actually strengthened his argument.

For more on absolutism and relativism click here.

Elton John and David Furnish have a surrogate child

Elton John and his long standing partner David Furnish are now parents to a baby boy. ApparantlyElton is the boy's biological father via a surrogate mother.

This raises some interesting issues related to our topics of study.

Firstly the question of the 'right to a child'. Is it right that people, who cannot have children naturally, should be able to do so artificially? Some would argue yes. The joy that a child brings to its parents, family and friends means that it is a good thing. Technology is used in many different ways to improve our lives, so why not use it to provide children?

Others however would disagree. One reason is from a deontological perspective and is supported by the Catholic Church. They would propose that there is no 'right' to a child. A child is a gift. If you are unable to have children naturally you must accept this and maybe explore other avenues eg, adoption. (Incidentally it seem Elton and David did try to adopt but were not successful.) They would assert that children should not be treated as material commodities that are there to improve our lives.

Another response, a more practical consequentialist one, would refer to the world's growing population. It has been suggested that over population is one of the biggest threats to our future flourishing. This would mean that going to excessive lengths to have children could be viewed as not only damaging but also immoral.

Another related issue is that of homosexuality. In a society of equal rights it would be wrong to deny fertility and surrogacy treatments to homosexuals if it is allowed to hetrosexuals. There are those, often, though not exclusively from religious standpoints, that propose that homosexuality is an intrinsic wrong, either because of scriptural passages or on grounds that it breaks the nartural purpose of sex. Should the sexuality and gender of the prospective 'parents' be a factor when considering the morality of surrogacy? Catholic teaching can neatly avoid this awkward issue as they say surrogacy should not be allowed at all!

So, what do you think?

For more on Elton John's baby click here.

For resources on the Right to a Child topic click here.

For resources on sexual ethics click here.

Catholic Church announces that the use of Condoms can sometimes be the right thing to do.

One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic Church is that the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, is wrong. This is because they believe that the main God given purpose of sex is to reproduce. This is based on a Natural Law view of ethics, heavily influenced by St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle who were both concerned with the purpose or Telos of an action.


This belief has, until now, been seen in an absolutist way so that the use of condoms would be seen as wrong in any circumstance.

There now appears to be a change of stance whereby the Pope has said that, in situations were a condom is being used to prevent the spread of HIV, and thus protect one's partner, that their use is the most repsonsible thing. This could still fit with a Natural Law approach under what is called 'double effect'. This is where, when one's primary intention is good, eg to save a life, a normally immoral action can be allowed.
This does not mark any significant change in the Church's view of sex or indeed contraception. It still holds that sex should only be within marriage and should always have the possibility of reproduction. It also still maintains that the proper way to combat HIV is not condoms but through a change of attitude and lifestyle with regards to sex.

It does seem to show though that there is some recognition of a 'grey area' in some ethical matters however which will be seen by some as very significant.

For more on this story click here.
For more on Natural Law click here.
For more on sexual ethics click here.

The Last Supper... would you like fries with that?!

As Christians prepare for Holy Week they will be drawn to remember Jesus' Last Supper with his disciples, the event which Communion/Eucharist is based on.



Recent research has shown however that in artistic depictions of this event portion sizes have significantly increased over time.
Could this be yet another sign of the overindulgent, materialistic Western lifestyle? So used are we to having all that we want, and more, that we find it hard to depict a celebratory meal with only meagre portions.
The implications of this can be seen in rising levels of obesity, especially in the USA.
From a broader perspective, this sort of attitude may well be responsible for collapse of the global financial system, where banks, being driven by greed, took ever increasing risks secure bigger profits. The price of this is that we may all have to tighten our belts and reduce our portion sizes as public spending looks set to drop and taxes look set to rise for years to come.
Exploitation in labour and trade is another symptom of putting profit and personal gain above all else. Many of our high street retailers have been shamed in recent years, due to their use of child labour in sweat shop conditions. How can such rich businesses put their finances above the lives of thousands... yet does the fact that I am wearing my Primark jumper as I write this highlight that this is not just an issue for businesses but for all of us?
The impact of working for profit and personal gain has also taken its toll on the environment and while we are being told to reduce our 'carbon footprint', the biggest polluting countries, USA and China, are very reluctant to sign up to any climate change plans, due to the financial impact.
The events of Holy Week have huge religious significance for millions of Christians but maybe the simple meal of the Last Supper can also have a far more down to earth and practical message for all of us in the 21st Century. One that doesn't require fries on the side...

Click for resources on Business and Environmental Ethics.

What do you mean?

'Ghandi was good; Hitler was bad; honesty is right; killing is wrong...'






We use words such as 'good' and 'bad' all the time, often in an amoral sense, 'That was a good Theology lesson(!)', but, more importantly, we regularly use them in a moral sense.

But, what do we really mean when when we say, 'Hitler was bad'?

Do we mean...
He did things that are intrinsically wrong;
He did things that had negative consequences;
He did things which I personally feel are wrong;
He did things that the majority of people feel are wrong;
He did things that no people should ever do?

There are those, such as A. J. Ayer, who hold that ethical statements are no more than expressions of emotion. So if I say, 'The Iraq war was wrong' all I am really saying is 'Boo to the Iraq War' in the same way one may Boo at a pantomime villain. No proof can be offered as to whether the statement is true or not, it is simply how I feel. This is called Emotivism.

On the hand there are those who propose that moral statements are objective, something is either right or wrong. G. E. Moore suggested that we recognise 'good' intuitively, we simply know when we see it. We cannot, however, define goodness. For example I may say that charity is good, but this only says that charity has the quality of goodness, it doesn't actually say what goodness is. What it does do though is show that we do recognise goodness when we see it. This is called Intuitionism.

Others, such as F. H. Bradley, advocate that ethical statements are like any other, and that they can be shown to be the case. For example, 'Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister' can be shown by checking historical records, and equally 'Martin Luther King was a good man' can be shown by examing his actions and their results. As such, his goodness would not simply be my opinion, it would be shown to be objectively true. This is called Ethical Naturalism.

So when, for example, we hear Terry Pratchett arguing that it is right for people to be allowed to decide when they die, what does he actually mean? Is it what he would prefer; is it what would benefit most people or is he saying it is some sort of absolute right?

I wonder how many of us say we think things are right or wrong without really stopping to think what we actually mean?

To explore these ideas further click here.

Are we really free?

The terrible case of the 2 young brothers who brutally tortured 2 other boys raises a very serious question regarding free will. The obvious, understandable reaction to cases such as this often along the lines of 'lock them up and throw away the key' or 'torture them and see how they like it'. While one can empathise with this view, especially in the case of the victim's families, the reality may not be that simple.
When we speak of justice or morality we normally require that someone be acting freely if we are to apportion blame. Looking at the background to this tragic case it appears that the 2 attackers have themselves been subject to abuse. Watching extremely violent and pornographic films, drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis, all under the age of 10.
To reject the concept of free will however has serious implications. What right do we have to punish people who do not freely choose their actions? Free Will is also a hugley important concept within Christain Theology, and to reject it would be unacceptable for many.


The American lawyer Clarence Darrow used a determinist arguemt to save 2 teenage murderers from the death penalty in the famous Leopold Loeb case.

So does your upbring determine the person you are?
If so, then how far are you really responsible for your own actions?
Would the attack have occurred had the boys had a more caring upbringing?

Hard Determinists argue that we are not free. Our genetic make up, upbringing and environment mean that we will inevitably make the coices we do.
Libertarians reject determinism, arguing we are free.
Compatiblists accept we are in someways determined but are morally free.
Read more about these ideas here.

Interpreting The Bible

How the Bible is to be read and understood is by no means a simple matter.

There are a number of different ways of approaching the Bible and different Christian denominations will advocate one method over another.

This matter is further complicated by the huge variety of types of literature in the Bible, the different authors and the huge timescale over which the different books were written.

Some propose the Bible must be taken literally. This creates problems however as there are apparant contradictions and it also, for example, is very difficult to make this compatible with a scientific view of the world.

Others will suggest that many of the Biblical books should be read as myths that still, however, contain truths about God's relationship with humanity. While this may explain some of the contradictions and be compatible with science it does mean that the meaning of these myths is based on human judgement and could vary from person to person or denomination to denomination.

Read more here and here.

Can religious people help lead the fight to save the environment?

Some believe that religion may prove a positive factor in what may be humankind's biggest challenge because it teaches moderation rather then over indulgance.

Read more here.

Is it okay to do something just because everyone else is doing it?

It's very easy to condemn what we might see as immoral behaviour but what would you do in the same situation?

Read more here.