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.

AS Theology Essay Competition

Enrich your subject knowledge and understanding
Improve your exam skills
Excellent way to enhance your UCAS personal statement

Essay of no more than 1000 words

‘Any action is good as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.’ Discuss

Must be handed in/emailed to your Theology teacher by Monday 5th December
1st Prize £30

No Change to UK Abortion Law

There has been a recent parliamentary vote on whether women wanting an abortion should have to recieve independant counselling before the abortion is carried out. Critics of abortion clinics say the counselling currently offered is biased because they are run as businesses - this claim is denied by the clinics.



A human foetus at 24 weeks gestation - abortions can be carried out up to this date in the UK.


Last year, 202,400 were carried out in the U. K.

Abortion is a highly contentious issue with many Pro-Life groups, including the Catholic Church, considering the killing of an unborn baby to be the same as killing any other person. They see it as murder.

MPs however, rejected the call to offer women independent counselling by 368 votes to 118 so tha law remains unchanged.

For more on this story click here.

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.

Are all views and beliefs equally valid or should we be able to say, 'You are wrong'?

Moral Relativism has long been a popular view; appealing as it is tolerant, does not preach and avoids us having to argue why our view is better than someone else's.

However, what should we do when we are faced with something that we really do feel is absolutely wrong?

Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, has controversial views on immigration, religion and sexuality. Are these views just as valid as anyone else's, as Relativism may suggest, or is he actually wrong?

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.