Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia — Christianity

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 2, 2.3 (Christianity). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

A woman with a terminal illness asks her doctor to help her die. A Christian has two obligations here and they point in opposite directions: this life is not hers to end, and her suffering is not something anybody may ignore. The whole topic is what happens when those two collide — and the traditions do not resolve it the same way.

What it means

The sanctity principle is a claim about where value comes from rather than a rule about death. Human life is holy because it is God-given, so its worth does not depend on ability, age or health — which is precisely why it protects the disabled, the dying and the unborn without needing to argue about capacity.

Beside it stands the commandment, which prohibits murder specifically rather than all killing — a distinction that matters, because it is why Just War teaching can exist in the same tradition without contradiction.

And beside that stands the duty to relieve suffering, which is not optional kindness. Love of neighbour applies to the dying as much as to anybody, so the conflict in this unit is internal to Christianity rather than an attack on it from outside.

The vocabulary has to be exact. Euthanasia is deliberately ending a life to relieve suffering, and it is voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary, and active or passive. Withdrawing treatment that can no longer help is not euthanasia, and every tradition accepts it. Double effect is the Catholic principle that a good action with a foreseen bad side-effect may be permissible where the bad effect is not intended — which is how pain relief that shortens life is handled.

Why believers hold it

The traditions divide because they weigh the two duties differently, and each is reasoning consistently. Catholic teaching holds the sanctity of life absolute: no circumstance makes deliberately ending an innocent life right, so the answer to suffering has to be care rather than release. Several Protestant traditions hold life to be the highest good but not an absolute one, which allows other goods to outweigh it in extremity.

That is why the practical answer Christianity actually built is neither permission nor abandonment. The modern hospice movement was founded by a Christian on the reasoning that where the suffering cannot be removed, the sufferer is accompanied — and judging the tradition by its hospices rather than by its rules is the fairer test.

The argument Christians actually use in public is worth noticing, because it is not the scriptural one. What is pressed on legislators is a worry about consequences: that a permission would change how the seriously ill are regarded, and that some would choose death because they felt a burden. A tradition that does not otherwise reason by consequences reaches for a consequentialist argument here, which is a genuinely sharp thing to observe.

And on abortion the division is real and is the one examiner reports name most often. Catholic teaching admits no exception, which follows from holding that the soul is created at conception. Protestant traditions vary widely, and Orthodox teaching is strongly opposed with pastoral flexibility in extremity rather than a codified exception.

Where it comes from

• The Bible, Old Testament — Genesis 1:27 (translated)

  God created humankind in his own image.

  Human beings uniquely bear the image of God (imago Dei), which gives every human life a value that does not depend on ability, usefulness or age.

  What it is doing here: Grounds the value in something the person did not have to earn, which is what makes it survive illness, disability and dependence.

• The Bible, the Ten Commandments — Exodus 20:13 (Deuteronomy 5:17) (translated)

  You shall not murder.

  A direct prohibition on the unlawful taking of human life.

  What it is doing here: Prohibits murder specifically rather than all killing, which is why the same tradition can hold this and a doctrine of just war.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the duty that pulls the other way, and it is what makes this a conflict inside the tradition rather than a rule with critics outside it.

Where it bites

It shows in what Christians have built rather than in what they have banned: hospices, palliative care and the practice of accompanying people who cannot be cured. That is the tradition's actual answer to the question, and an answer that never mentions it has described the rules and missed the response.

It also decides concrete cases in hospitals. Withdrawing futile treatment is accepted; giving pain relief that may shorten life is handled by the principle about intention; and the case where the traditions genuinely divide is the competent adult who asks to die, which is where the whole argument actually lives.

What people get wrong

People think: Christians believe abortion is always wrong.

Actually: That is Catholic teaching. Protestant traditions vary widely and Orthodox practice allows pastoral flexibility in extremity. Examiner reports record candidates losing marks on exactly this misattribution, and naming the tradition is what earns the accuracy credit.

People think: Turning off a life-support machine is euthanasia.

Actually: Withdrawing treatment that can no longer help is distinguished from deliberately ending a life, by the traditions and by the law. Every tradition accepts letting somebody die when treatment is futile, so collapsing the two removes the position most Christians actually hold.

People think: Contraception and abortion raise the same question.

Actually: One prevents conception and the other ends a pregnancy that has begun, and traditions treating them alike are the exception. Sliding from one to the other is flagged in more than one examiner report as a cause of confused answers.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Name the tradition every time on abortion; writing 'Christians believe' here is the error reports name most often on this point.
• Keep withdrawal of futile treatment distinct from euthanasia, because the traditions and the law both distinguish them.
• Arguing from autonomy alone on a question about religious believers is a category error and earns very little.
• For the hedged statement about abortion sometimes being the most loving thing, notice the hedge: arguing that it is not ALWAYS loving has not engaged with what was claimed.
• The strongest available move is that Christianity's most effective public argument here is consequentialist, which is a form of reasoning the tradition does not otherwise use.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Christianity holds that human life is sacred because it is God-given, and it holds equally that relieving suffering is a duty. The specification names both, and the whole topic is what happens when they conflict. Catholic teaching resolves it by holding the sanctity of life absolute; several Protestant traditions resolve it by weighing. Presenting either as 'the Christian view' is the error the examiner reports record most often on this point.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Sanctity of life

Human life is holy because it is God-given, so its value does not depend on its quality.

Abortion

The deliberate ending of a pregnancy.

Euthanasia

Deliberately ending a life to relieve suffering; voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary; active or passive.

Quality of life

The argument that a life's value depends on its condition — the counter-principle to sanctity.

Palliative care

Care that relieves suffering without ending the sufferer — the traditions' preferred answer.

Double effect

Catholic principle: a good action with a foreseen bad side-effect may be permissible if the bad effect is not intended.

What Christianity teaches

• shared — Human life is sacred because every person is made in God's image, so its value does not depend on ability, age or health.
• shared — Deliberately taking innocent human life is forbidden. The commandment prohibits murder specifically, which is why Just War can coexist with it.
• shared — Relieving suffering is a Christian duty, not an optional kindness. Love of neighbour applies to the dying as much as to anyone.
• divided — Whether abortion is ever permissible.
  • Roman Catholic — Never directly. Life is protected from conception; the principle of double effect covers cases where a treatment to save the mother indirectly ends the pregnancy.
  • Protestant — Many traditions accept it where the mother's life is at risk, and some in cases of rape or severe abnormality, treating it as a tragic choice rather than a permitted one.
• common — Euthanasia is opposed across the traditions.
  • Roman Catholic — Absolutely opposed; palliative care is the answer, and double effect permits pain relief that may shorten life.
  • Protestant — Overwhelmingly opposed; a small minority argue that compassion can permit it in extreme cases.

Why it teaches this

The sanctity principle is not a rule about death; it is a claim about where value comes from. If a life is valuable because God gave it, then its value cannot be reduced by illness, disability or dependence — which is precisely why Christians have built hospices rather than campaigned for assisted dying. And the duty to relieve suffering comes from the same source, which is why the conflict is internal to the tradition rather than an attack on it.

Sources of authority

• The Bible, Old Testament — Genesis 1:27 (translated)

  God created humankind in his own image.

  Human beings uniquely bear the image of God (imago Dei), which gives every human life a value that does not depend on ability, usefulness or age.

  How to use it: Because the value comes from God rather than from what a person can do, it cannot be lost — which is why the argument reaches abortion, euthanasia, disability rights and racial equality from the same premise.

  What it does not settle: It establishes that human life is uniquely valuable; it does not by itself say when life begins, or that life may never be ended. Christians who accept it still disagree about abortion and just war.

• The Bible, the Ten Commandments — Exodus 20:13 (Deuteronomy 5:17) (translated)

  You shall not murder.

  A direct prohibition on the unlawful taking of human life.

  How to use it: Because the prohibition is on murder rather than all killing, the interesting question is which killings count — and that is where abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and war diverge.

  What it does not settle: Does not settle capital punishment — Genesis 9:6 has been read as requiring it, and the same tradition holds both texts.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  How to use it: It converts a belief into an obligation towards a specific person, which is why it can be used on almost any ethical topic — but the work is in saying WHO the neighbour is in this case and what love requires of them here.

  What it does not settle: It does not tell you what love requires. It has been used to argue for and against euthanasia, for and against same-sex relationships, and for and against pacifism.

Different interpretations

• Sanctity as absolute: no circumstance can make deliberately ending an innocent life right. The Catholic position, and the most consistent.
• Sanctity as weighty but defeasible: life is the highest good and other goods can outweigh it in extremity. Held across much of Protestantism.
• The act/omission distinction: withdrawing futile treatment is not the same as killing, and every tradition accepts letting someone die when treatment can no longer help.

Differences within Christianity

All Christians hold life sacred. Catholic teaching admits no exception on abortion; Protestant traditions do. This is the clearest denominational division on the specification and the one most often got wrong.

• Roman Catholic — Life protected from conception to natural death; abortion and euthanasia both gravely wrong; double effect and palliative care.
• Protestant — Wide variation on abortion; near-unanimous opposition to euthanasia with a small dissenting minority.
• Orthodox — Strongly opposed to both, with pastoral flexibility in extremity rather than a codified exception.

Application to the issue

It shows in what Christians build. The modern hospice movement was founded by a Christian — Cicely Saunders — on the reasoning that if you cannot remove the suffering you accompany the sufferer. Christian opposition to assisted dying is not usually argued from scripture alone but from the fear of what a permission would do to how the seriously ill are regarded, which is a consequentialist argument used by a tradition that is not consequentialist.

Arguments supporting

• Life is God's to give and to take. — Made in God's image; the prohibition on murder. (catholic)
  Answered by: It proves too much: medicine also intervenes in when people die, and no tradition forbids that.
• A permission would not stay where it was put. — From the terminally ill who ask, to the chronically ill, to those who feel they are a burden. (catholic)
  Answered by: An empirical claim, and the evidence from jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying is contested rather than settled.

Arguments challenging

• Relieving suffering is also a Christian duty, and it can conflict with preserving life. — Love of neighbour applies to the person in front of you, in the state they are in. (protestant)
  Answered by: Palliative care is the tradition's answer, and modern medicine makes it far more effective than it was when the argument was framed.
• The tradition already permits exceptions in the other direction. — Just War permits killing; double effect permits pain relief that shortens life; treatment may be withdrawn. (protestant)
  Answered by: Exceptions that preserve or accompany life are consistent with holding it supreme; euthanasia asks for an exception that ends it.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Life matters because of what a person can experience and do, not because it was given. That still opposes casual killing, and it locates the value in the person's own interests — which is why the secular position takes consent so seriously and can conclude that a competent adult's own death is theirs to choose. Humanists generally support assisted dying with safeguards, and oppose it where consent cannot be genuine.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether the sanctity of life is ABSOLUTE. Every religion on this specification affirms sanctity; the interesting question is never whether life matters but what follows when two goods conflict.

Defensible conclusions

• The sanctity principle is decisive where it does its real work — against killing for convenience — and much weaker in the hard cases it is usually cited for.
• Christianity's practical answer is palliative care rather than either permission or abandonment, and judging the tradition by its hospices rather than by its rules is the fairer test.
• The religious and secular positions converge on almost everything except the competent adult who asks to die, and that single case is where the whole argument actually lives.

Not defensible

• Writing that Christians believe abortion is always wrong — that is Catholic teaching, and the 2025 report records candidates losing marks for exactly this kind of misattribution.
• Treating withdrawal of futile treatment as euthanasia; the traditions distinguish them and so does the law.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three attitudes to abortion or euthanasia. Keep them distinct — 'always wrong', 'wrong except to save the mother', 'a matter for the woman's conscience'.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs about the sanctity of life, developed. Naming Catholic teaching specifically is what earns the accuracy credit.
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain the beliefs Christians may have about euthanasia: sanctity of life, the duty to relieve suffering, and palliative care as the resolution — each with a consequence attached.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Euthanasia should be legalised' and 'Allowing an abortion may be the most loving thing to do' are both set statements. The second is HEDGED — 'may be' — so an answer arguing it is not ALWAYS loving has not engaged with the claim made.

Common mistakes

• Attributing Catholic absolutism to all Christians — named in the 2025 report as a cause of lost marks.
• Sliding from abortion to contraception as though they were one issue; reports in 2019 and 2023 both flag it.
• Arguing from autonomy alone on a question about religious people, which is a category error.

“Christians believe divorce is always wrong.” — That is the Catholic position. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances, and most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage.

Write instead: Name the tradition. 'Catholic teaching holds marriage indissoluble, so the Church annuls rather than divorces' is accurate and scores; 'Christians believe' on a divided question is not. Do not over-correct. Many claims genuinely ARE shared — the Trinity, the resurrection, the authority of the Bible — and hedging those makes an answer weaker, not more careful. (Named in the 2025 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Contraception and abortion raise the same question for religious believers.” — Contraception prevents conception; abortion ends a pregnancy that has begun. Traditions that treat them alike are the exception, not the rule.

Write instead: Most religious traditions treat them separately. Catholic teaching rejects both, for different reasons. Many Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh positions accept contraception while restricting abortion. Some methods are contested precisely because a tradition disputes whether they prevent or end — and noticing that is a genuinely sophisticated point. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

Grade 9 insight

The Christian argument against euthanasia that actually persuades legislators is not the scriptural one. It is a consequentialist worry — that a permission changes how the seriously ill are regarded, and that some will choose death because they feel a burden. A learner who notices that the tradition's most effective public argument is a form of reasoning the tradition does not otherwise use has found something genuinely sharp, and it also explains why hospices rather than campaigns are Christianity's real answer here.

Carry on through Christianity

• Previous unit: 2.2 · The meaning and purpose of life
• Next unit: 2.4 · Human relationships
• Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia in the other religions: Buddhism · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• All of Christianity · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification