LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF AVIATION
Natural Law and Abortion
Submitted to Professor Timothy Yonts,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
ETHC 101-D02
Introduction to Ethics
by
Michael Hicks
December 12, 2022
Contents
Introduction....................................................................................................1
Natural Law....................................................................................................1
Abortion..........................................................................................................4
Conclusion......................................................................................................6
Bibliography...................................................................................................8
ii
1
Introduction
Through the course of this paper, I will attempt to expound on the question, “Is
abortion a morally right action?” It is also important to ask, “Is abortion supported by
Natural Law?” While Natural Law does not require the belief in any deity, it does not
prohibit it. Devine Nature Theory also shares many similarities with, and strengthens the
position of Natural Law, which will be explained later.
In my attempt to answer these questions, I will firstly describe Natural Law and
the methodology that is used when a supporter is faced with a moral dilemma. Then I will
apply these methods to the issue of abortion. Using the information, methodology, and
viewpoints of Natural Law, I hope to convey a position that states that abortion is
immoral, except in the rare, most extreme, and justifiable of scenarios.
Natural Law
Natural Law Theory asserts that the distinction between moral and immoral
actions can be discovered and understood through human reasoning. It also contends that
moral principles are universal, regardless of social culture or religious denomination.
Conversely, Divine Command Theory states that the determining body for moral and
immoral actions is not left to human reasoning, it is decided and commanded by God. If
God commands an action to be good, it is, then, moral. Any action prohibited by God is
then immoral. Both Natural Law and Divine Command theories lay the groundwork for
and create a set of rules that determine the morality and immorality for human actions.
However, Divine Command Theory requires that the person believe that God exists for
the theory to function. A belief in, or a disbelief of, a divine presence does not impact the
ability for Natural Law to function.
2
In Divine Command, there are no set values for moral or immoral, only what God
decides to be moral or immoral. Since the Divine Command theory is based on
commands received from God, with new commands the determination of what is moral
could change, be overridden, or contradict previous commands, making an action that
was once immoral, moral, or vice versa. A major weakness in the Divine Command
Theory is Plato’s “Euthyphro Dilemma”, that states that everything is morally neutral
until God declares it to be moral or immoral, and if this is true, God’s decision on the
morality of an action is left to arbitrary free choice.1 Alternatively, Plato continues, “it
could be the case that rape, murder, and lying are inherently immoral and that God
proclaims that we should not do them because, being omniscient, he knows with
complete accuracy their immoral nature.”2 This would assert that God is conforming to a
higher moral authority other than Himself which would bring the validity of the Divine
Command into question. If this was as far as Divine Command could go, there would be
no need to address the theory at all, however, modifications to the theory have been made
over time. From Divine Command came Devine Nature Theory. This theory posits that
moral standards are not something God must conform with to be holy. Instead, the
standard of morality is God’s nature. His nature is seen in all of His creations. The benefit
of Diving Nature Theory is that it avoids the Euthyphro Dilemma by basing morality on
an eternal being, which also removes the requirement for a higher moral authority other
than God. However, Devine Nature Theory is more of an explanation of what morality is,
instead of why it is. This is where Natural Law can continue when Divine Nature Theory
comes up short.
1 Michael S. Jones, Mark Farnham, and David Saxon. Talking About Ethics: A Conversational Approach to
Moral Dilemmas (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2021)
2 Ibid
3
As stated earlier, Natural Law can be observed in nature, and determined through
human reasoning, which can be referred to as general revelation. There is another way to
observe nature, which is known as special revelation. This is where God communicates
specific truths to specific people, such as God’s influence on people to write the
scriptures. While Natural Law can observe and determine the morality of a situation or
action, it is not without its flaws. One such flaw is that of personal interpretation. Two
different people observing the same reality can come to separate and opposite
conclusions of what is moral or immoral. This flaw can incite a deep-rooted fundamental
disagreement between people and cultures. The Natural Law theory does not require a
person to believe in God, but it also does not prohibit the belief either. Followers of
Christian Ethics also follow the word of God that is preserved in the Bible. The Bible is
the guide that Christians use to settle their personal and moral dilemmas as well as a rule
book to base how one lives one’s life to be more like Christ. Just because Natural Law
does not mandate the belief in God, does not mean that it cannot be used by those who
do. For example, the Bible appeals to Natural law in many different passages.3 One such
passage is;
1” The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his
hands.2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal
knowledge.3 They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from
them. 4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the
world. In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.5 It is like a
bridegroom coming out of his chamber, like a champion rejoicing to run his
3 Rae, Scott. 2018. “Moral Choices”. Available from: Liberty University Online Bookshelf, (4th Edition).
HarperCollins Christian.
4
course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing
is deprived of its warmth.” (Psalms 19:1-6NIV) which is simply observing nature
through a Christian lens. Using the guidance of Divine Nature as well as the theory of
Natural Law, it becomes much easier to determine the morality of issues. Now that we
have the what of morality through Divine Nature Theory, and the why through Natural
Law, we can continue, and apply this theory to the issue of abortion.
Abortion
Natural Law is a theory that has its beginnings with Aristotle and was further
developed by Thomas Aquinas. Natural Law believes that morality can be discovered
through the study of the natural world, human nature, and human social interactions.4
When a person observes reality, it is understood that the act of murder, is an evil and
therefore immoral act. In Natural Law, there are three factors that assist in the
determination of right and wrong. First is the act itself. Is the act alone considered good
or bad? Second is the intention of the action. What are the intentions of the person
committing the act? Third would be the circumstances. What is the desired outcome?5 An
action that is bad or evil cannot be made good by intention or circumstance. Conversely,
a good act can be made bad by the intention and or circumstance.6 Though the world and
its moral dilemmas continue to change, Natural Law is able to observe reality and
determine the best moral decisions.
4 Saxon. Et.al. 2021.
5 Irving, Diane N. 2000. “Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory.” The Linacre
Quarterly 67, no. 1 (February): 45–55.
6 Irving. 2020.
5
In the book, Moral Choices, it states that most philosophers agree that the
embryo or fetus have personhood either from the moment of conception, or at some point
while still in the womb.7 For one who supports Natural Law, and also follows Divine
Nature Theory, this claim can also be seen in the Bible, “Before I formed you in the
womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a
prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5 NIV) It follows that if the embryo or fetus has
personhood prior to birth, the act of abortion is comparable to murder. Since murder is an
immoral act, the same determination can be reached regarding abortion while applying
Natural Law alone, or with the aid of Divine Nature. While there are many reasons a
person would elect to have an abortion (i.e., rape, incest, physical or mental deformity), if
the fetus is recognized as a person with human rights, regardless of the reason, abortion is
still an act of murder and therefore immoral.
Counterintuitively, abortion is sometimes necessary for the protection of human
life. This can be demonstrated with the law of double effect. This law states that there is
an unintended but foreseen negative consequence of a given action. For example, a
woman is pregnant, and there is no intent to terminate the pregnancy. This woman learns
that she requires a lifesaving procedure, a hysterectomy, because her doctor found an
aggressive cancer in her womb. For the woman to survive, the doctor must remove the
woman’s uterus. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence is when the uterus is
removed, the fetus will not be able to survive. The doctor acted with the best of intentions
for their patient, but abortion was the foreseen negative consequence. In situations where
the only chance for the mother to survive is to abort the pregnancy, much thought and
care is needed in the decision to either terminate the pregnancy and almost guarantee
7 Rae. 2018.
6
survival of the mother, or continue with it, and know that there is a chance that both
mother and baby could be lost.
One pro-choice argument involving abortion is “My body, my choice.”,
where women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. A woman with
an unwanted pregnancy should be able to terminate it if or when they want to.
Bodily autonomy is an important and central right to any person, regardless of
gender. However, bodily autonomy applies to the person’s own body. While a woman is
pregnant, she is still free to do what she chooses with her body, but the other body inside
her womb is not part of her, it is attached to her. The fact that the fetus in her womb is a
distinctly different person from herself both genetically and physically precludes the
mother from claiming that her body and that of the fetus are one in the same person. This
means that a woman who chooses to abort an unwanted pregnancy is not acting within
bodily autonomy, but they are instead electing to kill the fetus because they simply do not
want it. This action is synonymous with murder, and therefore immoral. From a different
perspective in Natural Law, the act of abortion without the medical need for a lifesaving
procedure, for all intents and purposes, is the same as a mother deciding to kill her child
simply because she is carrying her child in her arms when she no longer wishes to carry
her child. Regardless of any ethical viewpoint, killing your child because you do not want
to carry them in your arms any longer is a heinously immoral and evil action. The only
difference between these two scenarios is the location of the child. Since the location of
the child, i.e., birth or in utero, does not constitute any notable difference to personhood8,
or the bestowment of human rights, both acts are deemed as equally immoral to the other.
8 Rae. 2018.
7
Conclusion
Abortion has been a heavily debated issue since its inception. Ending a life before it has had a
chance to begin is terrible. While there is an exception to the immorality of abortion, it is not
without pain, sadness, and regret. I have used the views of Natural Law, with and without, the aid
of Divine Nature Theory in an attempt to show a consistent moral position on the issue of
abortion. I have come to the conclusion that abortion is a reprehensible and immoral act in
almost every scenario, and that it should only be an option of last resort, reserved for life saving
measures only.
8
Bibliography
Irving, Diane N. 2000. “Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory.” The Linacre
Quarterly 67, no. 1 (February): 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508549.2000.11877567.
Rae, Scott. 2018. “Moral Choices”. Available from: Liberty University Online Bookshelf, (4th
Edition). HarperCollins Christian.
Michael S. Jones, Mark Farnham, and David Saxon. Talking About Ethics: A Conversational
Approach to Moral Dilemmas (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2021)
