pro abortion debate essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Abortion Debate — Pro Choice (Abortion)

Argumentative Essays on Pro Choice (abortion)

What makes a powerful pro choice essay topic.

When it comes to crafting a compelling pro choice abortion essay, the selection of a captivating topic is paramount. A well-chosen topic has the potential to make your essay shine and captivate the reader's attention. So, how can you brainstorm and discover the perfect essay topic? Here are some expert recommendations:

• Consider your passions: Embark on a journey of brainstorming topics that truly ignite your interest. By doing so, you ensure that you remain engaged throughout the writing process, allowing you to produce an essay that is truly compelling.
• Immerse yourself in research: Dive deep into the vast sea of information surrounding the pro choice abortion movement. By gaining a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, you can identify potential essay topics that will expand your knowledge base and captivate your readers.
• Analyze the ongoing debates: Stay up-to-date with the latest discussions and controversies surrounding pro choice abortion. By analyzing diverse viewpoints and arguments, you can find inspiration for unique and thought-provoking essay topics.
• Evaluate personal experiences: Reflect upon your own encounters or experiences with the pro choice abortion movement. These personal insights can provide invaluable perspectives and make your essay more relatable to your readers.
• Consider your target audience: Ponder upon the diverse readership that your essay will reach. Choose a topic that appeals to both supporters and skeptics of pro choice abortion, ensuring a broader and more impactful discussion.

Overall, a good pro choice abortion essay topic should be thought-provoking, relevant, and capable of sparking meaningful discussions.

Best Pro Choice Abortion Essay Topics

Here, we present some of the most compelling pro choice abortion essay topics:

• The Empowering Role of Pro Choice Abortion in Women's Reproductive Rights Movement
• Analyzing the Ripple Effect: The Impact of Pro Choice Abortion on Society
• The Ethical Enigma: Exploring the Considerations of Pro Choice Abortion
• Untangling the Web: A Critical Analysis of the Media's Portrayal of Pro Choice Abortion
• Unearthing the Roots: Examining the Historical Background of the Pro Choice Abortion Movement
• The Dance of Equality: The Intersectionality of Pro Choice Abortion and Feminism
• A Constitutional Right or a Moral Dilemma: Delving into the Controversy of Pro Choice Abortion
• Unveiling the Unseen: The Psychological Effects of Pro Choice Abortion on Women
• Abortion Access and Healthcare Disparities: A Closer Look at the Impact
• Shifting Paradigms: The Influence of Pro Choice Abortion on Religious Beliefs and Practices
• Unmasking the Numbers: Exploring the Economic Implications of Pro Choice Abortion
• Pro Choice Abortion and Population Control: A Deeper Examination
• The Global Tapestry: A Comparative Analysis of Pro Choice Abortion Perspectives
• Unlocking the Mind: The Impact of Pro Choice Abortion on Mental Health
• Examining the Opposition: Religious versus Secular Arguments against Pro Choice Abortion
• The Symphony of Empowerment: The Relationship between Pro Choice Abortion and Women's Empowerment
• Peering into the Crystal Ball: Predictions and Challenges for the Future of Pro Choice Abortion
• Through the Prism of Diversity: Exploring the Impact of Pro Choice Abortion on LGBTQ+ Rights
• Beyond Statistics: The Role of Pro Choice Abortion in Reducing Maternal Mortality Rates
• Analyzing the Legal Frameworks: A Global Perspective on Pro Choice Abortion

Engaging Pro Choice Essay Questions

To ignite meaningful discussions, consider these thought-provoking questions for your pro choice abortion essay:

• What are the main arguments employed by supporters of pro choice abortion?
• How does the pro choice abortion movement differ across various countries?
• What are the ethical implications of pro choice abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities?
• How does the media shape public opinion on pro choice abortion?
• What are the potential consequences of restricting access to pro choice abortion?
• How does pro choice abortion intersect with racial and socioeconomic disparities?
• What role does religion play in shaping attitudes towards pro choice abortion?
• How has pro choice abortion influenced women's reproductive healthcare policies?
• What are the psychological effects experienced by women who choose pro choice abortion?
• How has the pro choice abortion movement evolved over time?

Pro Choice Abortion Essay Prompts

Consider these essay prompts to explore various angles of pro choice abortion:

• Imagine a world where pro choice abortion is universally accepted. Describe the potential positive outcomes and challenges.
• Write a persuasive essay arguing that pro choice abortion is an inherent human right.
• Create a captivating dialogue between two individuals with contrasting views on pro choice abortion.
• Analyze the impact of pro choice abortion on the future of gender equality.
• Compose a compelling personal narrative about a woman's journey in making a pro choice abortion decision and its consequences.

Addressing Pro Choice Abortion Essay FAQs

Here are answers to frequently asked questions about writing pro choice abortion essays:

Q: What are the key elements of a compelling pro choice abortion essay?

A: A compelling pro choice abortion essay should possess a powerful thesis statement, well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence, and a clear logical structure. Additionally, incorporating personal experiences and maintaining a balanced tone can elevate the impact of your essay.

Q: How can I address counterarguments in my pro choice abortion essay?

A: Address counterarguments by presenting them objectively and refuting them with logical reasoning and evidence. This demonstrates your ability to consider different perspectives and strengthens your overall argument.

Q: How can I make my pro choice abortion essay stand out?

A: To make your essay stand out, choose a unique and thought-provoking topic, present original arguments supported by credible sources, and employ engaging and persuasive language. Incorporating personal anecdotes or real-life examples can also make your essay more memorable.

Q: Is it important to consider the opposing viewpoint in a pro choice abortion essay?

A: Yes, considering the opposing viewpoint is crucial to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Address counterarguments respectfully and refute them with strong evidence to strengthen your own argument and showcase your ability to engage with different perspectives.

Q: Are there any specific guidelines for referencing sources in a pro choice abortion essay?

A: Yes, it is important to properly cite all sources used in your pro choice abortion essay. Follow the guidelines of a recognized citation style, such as APA or MLA, to ensure accurate and consistent referencing. This adds credibility to your essay and avoids plagiarism.

Remember to always consult your instructor or follow any specific guidelines provided for your essay assignment. Happy writing!

An Examination of Abortion and Its Health Implications on Women

A persuasive paper on the issue of abortion, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Abortion: a Controversial Issue

Pro-choice argument in the debate on abortion, pro-choice arguments in support of abortion, pro-life and pro-choice abortion: the rights of the foetus vs the rights of the woman, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Arguments of The Pro-choice Faction in The Abortion Debate

Pro-choice is the right choice: reasons to make abortion legal, why abortion should be legalized, abortion in the united states: why i choose pro-choice, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Argumentation of Anti-abortion and Abortion-rights in United States

Woman vs society: pro life and pro choice views on abortion, evaluation of pro-life vs pro-choice point of view, a pro-choice view of the issue of abortion, pro-choice abortion as a right to women, supporting pro-choice is pro-women decision, the many rhetorical devices used by the pro-choice women right's movement of the 20th century, debating the ethics of abortion: abortion as murder, give a voice to women: pro-choice view on abortion, pro-choice abortion: it’s women’s choice to do with their bodies what they want, a comparison of pro-life and pro-choice ideologies, abortion and women’s freedom to choose, protecting the unborn: the pro-life position against abortion, why abortion is ethically right, pro choice: why abortion should remain a legal right, a pro-choice perspective on the controversial topic of abortion, pro-choice and pro-life arguments in the abortions debate, pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion in terms of religion, the role of the american women’s health movement and roe v. wade case in modern day women’s fight for reproductive rights, evaluation of the abortions-rights ideology in the united states.

The pro-choice movement is a collective advocacy effort that upholds the principle of individual autonomy and reproductive rights, asserting that individuals should have the legal freedom to make decisions regarding their own bodies, including the choice to have an abortion.

The pro-choice movement has a rich history that spans several decades, characterized by significant milestones, activism, and legal battles. It emerged as a response to the restrictive abortion laws and societal stigmatization surrounding reproductive choices, aiming to challenge and change the status quo. During the mid-20th century, trailblazers such as Margaret Sanger played a crucial role in advocating for birth control and setting the stage for reproductive rights activism. The pro-choice movement reached a significant milestone with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade in 1973. This pivotal decision granted women the constitutional right to choose abortion, solidifying the legal foundation upon which the movement was built. However, the pro-choice movement has not been without its challenges. It has faced opposition from anti-abortion groups, prompting pro-choice advocates to organize, mobilize, and form influential organizations like Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Grassroots activism, public awareness campaigns, and strategic lobbying have been vital in defending and expanding access to abortion services. Throughout its history, the pro-choice movement has also sought to address the societal stigma surrounding abortion. By sharing personal stories, fostering empathy, and promoting open dialogue, activists have aimed to destigmatize abortion and create a more compassionate and understanding society.

A significant portion of the population supports the principles and goals of the pro-choice movement. Many people believe that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to have an abortion. They argue that access to safe and legal abortion services is essential for reproductive autonomy, gender equality, and the overall well-being of women and marginalized communities. This perspective emphasizes the importance of comprehensive reproductive healthcare and the removal of barriers that restrict access to abortion. At the same time, there are individuals who hold reservations or have moral objections to abortion. Some may believe in the sanctity of life from conception or have religious or cultural values that influence their stance. These individuals may align themselves with the anti-abortion movement and advocate for stricter regulations or the complete prohibition of abortion. Public opinion on the pro-choice movement is also influenced by factors such as education, socioeconomic status, political ideology, and personal experiences. Cultural shifts, increased awareness about reproductive rights, and public discourse have contributed to a greater acceptance and understanding of the pro-choice position in many societies. In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on intersectionality within the pro-choice movement, recognizing that reproductive justice intersects with other social justice issues, including race, class, and LGBTQ+ rights. This broader perspective aims to address the diverse needs and experiences of individuals seeking reproductive healthcare and advocates for policies that promote equitable access to comprehensive reproductive services.

The topic of the pro-choice movement is crucial as it centers on the fundamental principles of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and gender equality. It emphasizes the importance of individuals having the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies, including the choice to have an abortion. The pro-choice movement highlights the significance of safe and legal access to reproductive healthcare, ensuring that individuals have the power to determine their reproductive futures. By advocating for reproductive rights, the movement challenges oppressive structures, fights against stigma, and strives to create a society where individuals are empowered to make informed choices about their reproductive health, free from judgment and coercion.

The topic of the pro-choice movement is worthy of an essay because it encompasses profound social, ethical, and legal dimensions. Exploring this subject provides an opportunity to delve into the complexities surrounding reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Writing about the pro-choice movement allows for an examination of historical milestones, legal battles, and the impact on individuals and society. Additionally, it prompts critical analysis of the intersections between reproductive justice and other social issues like healthcare access, socioeconomic disparities, and cultural norms. By exploring this topic, one can contribute to the discourse, promote awareness, and foster a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of the pro-choice movement.

1. The pro-choice movement extends beyond the United States: While the pro-choice movement gained significant momentum in the United States, its influence is not limited to a single country. 2. Intersectionality plays a crucial role in the pro-choice movement: The pro-choice movement recognizes that reproductive rights intersect with other social justice issues, such as race, class, and LGBTQ+ rights. 3. Access to abortion services remains an ongoing battle: Despite the landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States, access to abortion services continues to be a contentious issue. Numerous states have implemented restrictive laws, such as mandatory waiting periods, targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws, and limitations on insurance coverage. These efforts have led to a patchwork of access across the country, with disparities in availability and barriers for individuals seeking reproductive healthcare.

1. Steinem, G. (2015). My Life on the Road. Random House. 2. Norris, A., Bessett, D., Steinberg, J. R., Kavanaugh, M. L., & De Zordo, S. (2011). Abortion stigma: A reconceptualization of constituents, causes, and consequences. Women's Health Issues, 21(3), S49-S54. 3. McNeil, R. M., & Berer, M. (2017). The abortion law in Northern Ireland: Lessons for the United States. Guttmacher Policy Review, 20, 98-103. 4. Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. University of California Press. 5. Rees, D. I., Sabia, J. J., & Argys, L. M. (2017). A review of the effects of abortion policies. Southern Economic Journal, 83(4), 823-869. 6. Stotland, N. L., & Bryant, A. G. (2020). ACOG practice bulletin No. 225: Management of pregnancies with substance use disorders. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 135(6), e274-e298. 7. Jones, R. K., & Jerman, J. (2017). Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008-2014. American Journal of Public Health, 107(12), 1904-1909. 8. Clark, A. (2017). Reproductive rights and the state: Getting the birth control, RU-486, and morning-after pills and the Gardasil vaccine to the US market. Law and Policy, 39(2), 139-165. 9. Upadhyay, U. D., Weitz, T. A., & Jones, R. K. (2013). Barriers to abortion and their consequences for patients traveling for services: Qualitative findings from two states. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45(2), 84-91. 10. Roth, R. A. (2003). Making women pay: The hidden costs of fetal rights. Cornell University Press.

Relevant topics

• Pro Life (Abortion)
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• Homelessness
• Animal Testing
• Death Penalty
• I Have a Dream

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

America’s Abortion Quandary

1. americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal, table of contents.

• Broad public agreement that abortion should be legal if pregnancy endangers a woman’s health or is the result of rape 
• Most Americans open to some restrictions on abortion
• Views of penalties for abortion in situations where it is illegal 
• Partisan differences in views of abortion 
• Women are more likely than men to have thought ‘a lot’ about abortion, but there are only modest gender differences in views of legality
• White evangelicals are most opposed to abortion – but majorities across Christian subgroups see gray areas
• Guide to this report
• Abortion at various stages of pregnancy 
• Abortion and circumstances of pregnancy 
• Parental notification for minors seeking abortion
• Penalties for abortions performed illegally 
• Public views of what would change the number of abortions in the U.S.
• A majority of Americans say women should have more say in setting abortion policy in the U.S.
• How do certain arguments about abortion resonate with Americans?
• In their own words: How Americans feel about abortion 
• Personal connections to abortion 
• Religion’s impact on views about abortion
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

As the long-running debate over abortion reaches another  key moment at the Supreme Court  and in  state legislatures across the country , a majority of U.S. adults continue to say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About six-in-ten Americans (61%) say abortion should be legal in “all” or “most” cases, while 37% think abortion should be  illegal  in all or most cases. These views have changed little over the past several years: In 2019, for example, 61% of adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 38% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.    Most respondents in the new survey took one of the middle options when first asked about their views on abortion, saying either that abortion should be legal in  most  cases (36%) or illegal in  most  cases (27%). 

Respondents who said abortion should either be legal in  all  cases or illegal in  all  cases received a follow-up question asking whether there should be any exceptions to such laws. Overall, 25% of adults initially said abortion should be legal in all cases, but about a quarter of this group (6% of all U.S. adults) went on to say that there should be some exceptions when abortion should be against the law.

One-in-ten adults initially answered that abortion should be illegal in all cases, but about one-in-five of these respondents (2% of all U.S. adults) followed up by saying that there are some exceptions when abortion should be permitted. 

Altogether, seven-in-ten Americans say abortion should be legal in some cases and illegal in others, including 42% who say abortion should be generally legal, but with some exceptions, and 29% who say it should be generally illegal, except in certain cases. Much smaller shares take absolutist views when it comes to the legality of abortion in the U.S., maintaining that abortion should be legal in all cases with no exceptions (19%) or illegal in all circumstances (8%). 

There is a modest gender gap in views of whether abortion should be legal, with women slightly more likely than men to say abortion should be legal in all cases or in all cases but with some exceptions (63% vs. 58%). 

Younger adults are considerably more likely than older adults to say abortion should be legal: Three-quarters of adults under 30 (74%) say abortion should be generally legal, including 30% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception. 

But there is an even larger gap in views toward abortion by partisanship: 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 38% of Republicans and GOP leaners.  Previous Center research  has shown this gap widening over the past 15 years. 

Still, while partisans diverge in views of whether abortion should mostly be legal or illegal, most Democrats and Republicans do not view abortion in absolutist terms. Just 13% of Republicans say abortion should be against the law in all cases without exception; 47% say it should be illegal with some exceptions. And while three-in-ten Democrats say abortion should be permitted in all circumstances, half say it should mostly be legal – but with some exceptions. 

There also are sizable divisions within both partisan coalitions by ideology. For instance, while a majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say abortion should mostly be legal (60%), just 27% of conservative Republicans say the same. Among Democrats, self-described liberals are twice as apt as moderates and conservatives to say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception (42% vs. 20%).

Regardless of partisan affiliation, adults who say they personally know someone who has had an abortion – such as a friend, relative or themselves – are more likely to say abortion should be legal than those who say they do not know anyone who had an abortion.

Views toward abortion also vary considerably by religious affiliation – specifically among large Christian subgroups and religiously unaffiliated Americans. 

For example, roughly three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. This is far higher than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (38%) or Black Protestants (28%) who say the same. 

Despite  Catholic teaching on abortion , a slim majority of U.S. Catholics (56%) say abortion should be legal. This includes 13% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception, and 43% who say it should be legal, but with some exceptions. 

Compared with Christians, religiously unaffiliated adults are far more likely to say abortion should be legal overall – and significantly more inclined to say it should be legal in all cases without exception. Within this group, atheists stand out: 97% say abortion should be legal, including 53% who say it should be legal in all cases without exception. Agnostics and those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” also overwhelmingly say that abortion should be legal, but they are more likely than atheists to say there are some circumstances when abortion should be against the law.

Although the survey was conducted among Americans of many religious backgrounds, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, it did not obtain enough respondents from non-Christian groups to report separately on their responses.

As a  growing number of states  debate legislation to restrict abortion – often after a certain stage of pregnancy – Americans express complex views about when   abortion should generally be legal and when it should be against the law. Overall, a majority of adults (56%) say that how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining when abortion should be legal, while far fewer (14%) say that this should  not  be a factor. An additional one-quarter of the public says that abortion should either be legal (19%) or illegal (8%) in all circumstances without exception; these respondents did not receive this question.

Among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and Christians and religious “nones” who do not take absolutist positions about abortion on either side of the debate, the prevailing view is that the stage of the pregnancy should be a factor in determining whether abortion should be legal.

Americans broadly are more likely to favor restrictions on abortion later in pregnancy than earlier in pregnancy. Many adults also say the legality of abortion depends on other factors at every stage of pregnancy. 

Overall, a plurality of adults (44%) say that abortion should be legal six weeks into a pregnancy, which is about when cardiac activity (sometimes called a fetal heartbeat) may be detected and before many women know they are pregnant; this includes 19% of adults who say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception, as well as 25% of adults who say it should be legal at that point in a pregnancy. An additional 7% say abortion generally should be legal in most cases, but that the stage of the pregnancy should not matter in determining legality. 1

One-in-five Americans (21%) say abortion should be  illegal  at six weeks. This includes 8% of adults who say abortion should be illegal in all cases without exception as well as 12% of adults who say that abortion should be illegal at this point. Additionally, 6% say abortion should be illegal in most cases and how long a woman has been pregnant should not matter in determining abortion’s legality. Nearly one-in-five respondents, when asked whether abortion should be legal six weeks into a pregnancy, say “it depends.” 

Americans are more divided about what should be permitted 14 weeks into a pregnancy – roughly at the end of the first trimester – although still, more people say abortion should be legal at this stage (34%) than illegal (27%), and about one-in-five say “it depends.”

Fewer adults say abortion should be legal 24 weeks into a pregnancy – about when a healthy fetus could survive outside the womb with medical care. At this stage, 22% of adults say abortion should be legal, while nearly twice as many (43%) say it should be  illegal . Again, about one-in-five adults (18%) say whether abortion should be legal at 24 weeks depends on other factors. 

Respondents who said that abortion should be illegal 24 weeks into a pregnancy or that “it depends” were asked a follow-up question about whether abortion at that point should be legal if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or the baby would be born with severe disabilities. Most who received this question say abortion in these circumstances should be legal (54%) or that it depends on other factors (40%). Just 4% of this group maintained that abortion should be illegal in this case.

This pattern in views of abortion – whereby more favor greater restrictions on abortion as a pregnancy progresses – is evident across a variety of demographic and political groups. 

Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that abortion should be legal at each of the three stages of pregnancy asked about on the survey. For example, while 26% of Republicans say abortion should be legal at six weeks of pregnancy, more than twice as many Democrats say the same (61%). Similarly, while about a third of Democrats say abortion should be legal at 24 weeks of pregnancy, just 8% of Republicans say the same. 

However, neither Republicans nor Democrats uniformly express absolutist views about abortion throughout a pregnancy. Republicans are divided on abortion at six weeks: Roughly a quarter say it should be legal (26%), while a similar share say it depends (24%). A third say it should be illegal. 

Democrats are divided about whether abortion should be legal or illegal at 24 weeks, with 34% saying it should be legal, 29% saying it should be illegal, and 21% saying it depends. 

There also is considerable division among each partisan group by ideology. At six weeks of pregnancy, just one-in-five conservative Republicans (19%) say that abortion should be legal; moderate and liberal Republicans are twice as likely as their conservative counterparts to say this (39%). 

At the same time, about half of liberal Democrats (48%) say abortion at 24 weeks should be legal, while 17% say it should be illegal. Among conservative and moderate Democrats, the pattern is reversed: A plurality (39%) say abortion at this stage should be illegal, while 24% say it should be legal. 

Christian adults are far less likely than religiously unaffiliated Americans to say abortion should be legal at each stage of pregnancy.  

Among Protestants, White evangelicals stand out for their opposition to abortion. At six weeks of pregnancy, for example, 44% say abortion should be illegal, compared with 17% of White non-evangelical Protestants and 15% of Black Protestants. This pattern also is evident at 14 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, when half or more of White evangelicals say abortion should be illegal.

At six weeks, a plurality of Catholics (41%) say abortion should be legal, while smaller shares say it depends or it should be illegal. But by 24 weeks, about half of Catholics (49%) say abortion should be illegal. 

Among adults who are religiously unaffiliated, atheists stand out for their views. They are the only group in which a sizable majority says abortion should be  legal  at each point in a pregnancy. Even at 24 weeks, 62% of self-described atheists say abortion should be legal, compared with smaller shares of agnostics (43%) and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” (31%). 

As is the case with adults overall, most religiously affiliated and religiously unaffiliated adults who originally say that abortion should be illegal or “it depends” at 24 weeks go on to say either it should be legal or it depends if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or the baby would be born with severe disabilities. Few (4% and 5%, respectively) say abortion should be illegal at 24 weeks in these situations.

The stage of the pregnancy is not the only factor that shapes people’s views of when abortion should be legal. Sizable majorities of U.S. adults say that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the pregnant woman (73%) or if pregnancy is the result of rape (69%). 

There is less consensus when it comes to circumstances in which a baby may be born with severe disabilities or health problems: 53% of Americans overall say abortion should be legal in such circumstances, including 19% who say abortion should be legal in all cases and 35% who say there are some situations where abortions should be illegal, but that it should be legal in this specific type of case. A quarter of adults say “it depends” in this situation, and about one-in-five say it should be illegal (10% who say illegal in this specific circumstance and 8% who say illegal in all circumstances). 

There are sizable divides between and among partisans when it comes to views of abortion in these situations. Overall, Republicans are less likely than Democrats to say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances outlined in the survey. However, both partisan groups are less likely to say abortion should be legal when the baby may be born with severe disabilities or health problems than when the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape. 

Just as there are wide gaps among Republicans by ideology on whether how long a woman has been pregnant should be a factor in determining abortion’s legality, there are large gaps when it comes to circumstances in which abortions should be legal. For example, while a clear majority of moderate and liberal Republicans (71%) say abortion should be permitted when the pregnancy is the result of rape, conservative Republicans are more divided. About half (48%) say it should be legal in this situation, while 29% say it should be illegal and 21% say it depends.

The ideological gaps among Democrats are slightly less pronounced. Most Democrats say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances – just to varying degrees. While 77% of liberal Democrats say abortion should be legal if a baby will be born with severe disabilities or health problems, for example, a smaller majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (60%) say the same. 

White evangelical Protestants again stand out for their views on abortion in various circumstances; they are far less likely than White non-evangelical or Black Protestants to say abortion should be legal across each of the three circumstances described in the survey. 

While about half of White evangelical Protestants (51%) say abortion should be legal if a pregnancy threatens the woman’s life or health, clear majorities of other Protestant groups and Catholics say this should be the case. The same pattern holds in views of whether abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is the result of rape. Most White non-evangelical Protestants (75%), Black Protestants (71%) and Catholics (66%) say abortion should be permitted in this instance, while White evangelicals are more divided: 40% say it should be legal, while 34% say it should be  illegal  and about a quarter say it depends. 

Mirroring the pattern seen among adults overall, opinions are more varied about a situation where a baby might be born with severe disabilities or health issues. For instance, half of Catholics say abortion should be legal in such cases, while 21% say it should be illegal and 27% say it depends on the situation. 

Most religiously unaffiliated adults – including overwhelming majorities of self-described atheists – say abortion should be legal in each of the three circumstances. 

Seven-in-ten U.S. adults say that doctors or other health care providers should be required to notify a parent or legal guardian if the pregnant woman seeking an abortion is under 18, while 28% say they should not be required to do so.  

Women are slightly less likely than men to say this should be a requirement (67% vs. 74%). And younger adults are far less likely than those who are older to say a parent or guardian should be notified before a doctor performs an abortion on a pregnant woman who is under 18. In fact, about half of adults ages 18 to 24 (53%) say a doctor should  not  be required to notify a parent. By contrast, 64% of adults ages 25 to 29 say doctors  should  be required to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion, as do 68% of adults ages 30 to 49 and 78% of those 50 and older. 

A large majority of Republicans (85%) say that a doctor should be required to notify the parents of a minor before an abortion, though conservative Republicans are somewhat more likely than moderate and liberal Republicans to take this position (90% vs. 77%). 

The ideological divide is even more pronounced among Democrats. Overall, a slim majority of Democrats (57%) say a parent should be notified in this circumstance, but while 72% of conservative and moderate Democrats hold this view, just 39% of liberal Democrats agree. 

By and large, most Protestant (81%) and Catholic (78%) adults say doctors should be required to notify parents of minors before an abortion. But religiously unaffiliated Americans are more divided. Majorities of both atheists (71%) and agnostics (58%) say doctors should  not  be required to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion, while six-in-ten of those who describe their religion as “nothing in particular” say such notification should be required. 

Americans are divided over who should be penalized – and what that penalty should be – in a situation where an abortion occurs illegally. 

Overall, a 60% majority of adults say that if a doctor or provider performs an abortion in a situation where it is illegal, they should face a penalty. But there is less agreement when it comes to others who may have been involved in the procedure. 

While about half of the public (47%) says a woman who has an illegal abortion should face a penalty, a nearly identical share (50%) says she should not. And adults are more likely to say people who help find and schedule or pay for an abortion in a situation where it is illegal should  not  face a penalty than they are to say they should.

Views about penalties are closely correlated with overall attitudes about whether abortion should be legal or illegal. For example, just 20% of adults who say abortion should be legal in all cases without exception think doctors or providers should face a penalty if an abortion were carried out in a situation where it was illegal. This compares with 91% of those who think abortion should be illegal in all cases without exceptions. Still, regardless of how they feel about whether abortion should be legal or not, Americans are more likely to say a doctor or provider should face a penalty compared with others involved in the procedure. 

Among those who say medical providers and/or women should face penalties for illegal abortions, there is no consensus about whether they should get jail time or a less severe punishment. Among U.S. adults overall, 14% say women should serve jail time if they have an abortion in a situation where it is illegal, while 16% say they should receive a fine or community service and 17% say they are not sure what the penalty should be. 

A somewhat larger share of Americans (25%) say doctors or other medical providers should face jail time for providing illegal abortion services, while 18% say they should face fines or community service and 17% are not sure. About three-in-ten U.S. adults (31%) say doctors should lose their medical license if they perform an abortion in a situation where it is illegal.

Men are more likely than women to favor penalties for the woman or doctor in situations where abortion is illegal. About half of men (52%) say women should face a penalty, while just 43% of women say the same. Similarly, about two-thirds of men (64%) say a doctor should face a penalty, while 56% of women agree.

Republicans are considerably more likely than Democrats to say both women and doctors should face penalties – including jail time. For example, 21% of Republicans say the woman who had the abortion should face jail time, and 40% say this about the doctor who performed the abortion. Among Democrats, far smaller shares say the woman (8%) or doctor (13%) should serve jail time.  

White evangelical Protestants are more likely than other Protestant groups to favor penalties for abortions in situations where they are illegal. Fully 24% say the woman who had the abortion should serve time in jail, compared with just 12% of White non-evangelical Protestants or Black Protestants. And while about half of White evangelicals (48%) say doctors who perform illegal abortions should serve jail time, just 26% of White non-evangelical Protestants and 18% of Black Protestants share this view.

• Only respondents who said that abortion should be legal in some cases but not others and that how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining whether abortion should be legal received questions about abortion’s legality at specific points in the pregnancy.  ↩

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Christianity
• Evangelicalism
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy
• Protestantism
• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Politics
• Religion & Social Values

Most Popular

Report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

How to Win the Abortion Argument

Activists overseas have lessons for post- Roe America.

This article was featured in One Story to Read Today, a newsletter in which our editors recommend a single must-read from The Atlantic , Monday through Friday. Sign up for it here.     

In May 2016, three women walked into a police station in Derry, Northern Ireland, and gave themselves up. They were unlikely criminals—all born in the 1940s, they arrived wearing warm coats and jeans. But Colette Devlin, Diana King, and Kitty O’Kane were deadly serious about their willingness to spend years in prison. Their offense: These three women had bought abortion pills on the internet.

I wrote about Devlin, King, and O’Kane in my history of feminism, Difficult Women , because they represented a type of unshowy grassroots activism that I find humbling and that will become ever more important in a post- Roe America. If anything close to Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion becomes an official Supreme Court ruling this summer, the effect on reproductive freedom will be immediate. Nine states have pre- Roe laws, currently unenforced, to ban all or nearly all abortion; 13 more have post- Roe bans that would be activated by the decision, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute .

When I went to meet the Derry activists, in 2018, Northern Ireland had a near-total ban on abortion, too. Although it is part of the United Kingdom, whose 1967 Abortion Act legalized terminations under certain conditions, Northern Ireland had been granted an exemption. Amid decades of conflict between Catholics and Protestants, leaders of the two religious factions could agree on one thing: They were opposed to a woman’s right to choose. The law in Northern Ireland made no exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal abnormalities.

Read: The GOP’s strange turn against rape exceptions

As always happens with abortion bans, people with resources found a way around the law. Anyone with money traveled across the sea to England, usually Manchester or Liverpool. Others bought pills on the internet. But Devlin, King, and O’Kane had heard about a teenager who’d used the pills and was reported to the police by her housemates. The three abortion-rights advocates believed that her conviction was an abomination—and they gambled that the police would stop pursuing such cases if their actions were subjected to public scrutiny. So they bought the same pills, went to a police station, and confessed everything. They dared the state to lock them up. Perhaps, King told me later, prison would give her a chance to catch up on her reading.

That same year, I went to Dublin, 130 miles south of Derry in the Republic of Ireland, to witness a historic moment. Ireland was holding a referendum on repealing the eighth amendment to its constitution. That law gave equal weight to the lives of the mother and fetus—making doctors reluctant to offer a termination even when the mother’s life was in danger. In 2012, the eighth amendment led to the death of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist who started to miscarry at 17 weeks. She arrived at University Hospital Galway with the fetal sac half-delivered into her vagina. But doctors would not give her drugs to expel the fetus.

Halappanavar developed sepsis. Once a fetal heartbeat was no longer detectable, doctors removed the contents of her womb. It was too late. Her blood was poisoned, and she died seven days after being admitted to the hospital. An official inquest attributed her fate to “medical misadventure.” Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, a medical professor who presided over a subsequent investigation, told an Irish government committee that the abortion ban had tied doctors’ hands. Had the hospital terminated Halappanavar’s pregnancy when she first asked, Arulkamaran said, “We would never have heard of her, and she would be alive today.”

The Halappanavar case increased support for the Irish feminist movement, leading to the campaign to #RepealTheEighth, as it became known. On May 25, 2018, two-thirds of Irish voters endorsed repeal —an astonishingly high number in a traditionally Catholic country—and by the end of the year, the Irish Parliament had legalized abortion up to 12 weeks into a pregnancy. The new law was still restrictive compared with England, Scotland, and Wales, but it represented a new, more liberal era for a country once dominated by the Church. It also gave members of the British Parliament the courage to challenge Northern Ireland’s exemption from the 1967 Abortion Act. In 2019, Parliament passed a law decriminalizing abortion in Northern Ireland, which now allows the procedure up to 12 weeks . Provision is still contested, and limited, and many women still travel to England, but the prosecutions against individual women making hard and lonely choices have stopped. The case against Colette Devlin, Diana King, and Kitty O’Kane was never pursued. King never got time to catch up on her reading.

Having covered both of these campaigns, I think they can offer inspiration for American activists facing the downfall of Roe v. Wade and the constitutionally protected right to abortion that it established. To some, the advice below will seem very basic, but that’s the point. Conservatives have chipped away at abortion provision for decades, but the end of Roe is something different—an era-defining change. Activists need to go back to fundamental principles, and to do slow, careful movement-building that goes beyond marches and slogans. Although the legal framework of the U.S. is unique, there are commonalities in the struggle. Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are countries with powerful religious traditions and institutions, making them more similar to the U.S. than to other, more secular Western European countries. So how did activists there highlight the human cost of abortion restrictions—and mitigate their effects while bans were in place?

Regain a Sense of Urgency

Online progressives tend to deprecate British (and, by extension, Irish) feminism as fusty and middle-aged, but its cross-generational appeal is a strength. An awareness of feminist history reveals how fragile gains can be, and how they must be constantly defended. “Myself and other activists in my community are focused on issues that feel like immediate life or death, like the environment,” one member of America’s Generation Z told a New York Times reporter recently. A 20-something explained how she felt more energized by campaigns against police racism: “A lot of the language I heard was about protecting Roe v. Wade … It felt grounded in the ’70s feminist movement. And it felt like, I can’t focus on abortion access if my people are dying.”

Adam Serwer: Alito’s plan to repeal the 20th century

These statements suggest complacency among a generation for whom second-wave feminist is an insult rather than an accolade. But feminism succeeds only when women recognize their common experiences and build on the work of previous generations. And that respect and solidarity goes two ways: What I found moving about the three women of Derry is that they risked going to jail despite knowing they were long past needing an abortion themselves. “Older women have much less to lose,” King told me.

In the U.S., post- Roe generations of feminists have found other compelling causes to champion, but they must not be afraid to make this fight a priority. The history of the suffragette movement, and other feminist movements, is the history of women being told to wait their turn. If Roe falls, this issue is one of “immediate life or death.” Alito’s logic could also be used to dismantle other legal protections , such as those prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Appeal to Normies

Support for abortion rights should be presented as a commonsense, normie, majority position, because it is . Most Americans support the right to abortion, at least in the first trimester, but most Americans also have reservations about the procedure. Campaigners should acknowledge this; they cannot afford a repeat of the writer and director Lena Dunham’s joking comment that “I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.” (She later apologized .)

One of the most eye-catching parts of the pro-choice campaign in Ireland was “ Grandfathers for Yes .” This was exactly what it sounds like: a group of seniors (the demographic most likely to be pro-life) campaigning for abortion rights. Baby Boomers weren’t being scolded that they didn’t “get it” by young activists; instead, Grandfathers for Yes presented pro-choice beliefs as sensible, compassionate, and mainstream. Using phrases and ideas traditionally associated with the “other side” can also be effective. Kamala Harris’s statement on the Supreme Court leak used the conservative language of individual rights. “If the right to privacy is weakened,” the vice president argued, “every person could face a future in which the government can potentially interfere in the personal decisions you make about your life.”

Mary Ziegler: The conservatives aren’t just ending Roe —they’re delighting in it

In Ireland, the Yes campaign generally focused on family bonds. One slogan ran: “Your mother. Your daughter. Your sister. Her choice.” This kind of language might strike some abortion-rights defenders as patronizing. But it worked. On a similar note, #RepealTheEighth ran a trans-inclusive campaign without losing sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of those who need abortions are women, and that abortion bans are driven by the desire to control female bodies.

Resist Polarization

Ireland became a model of how to take a divisive issue and encourage a productive debate. Ahead of the referendum, a citizen’s assembly considered the subject. A representative sample of voters heard from experts on the topic and offered a considered opinion. When the referendum was called, the Irish government made clear that it would introduce only limited access to abortion in the event of a “yes” vote. That allowed religious voters, mild conservatives, and nervous older people to be reassured that they weren’t voting for a free-for-all. It shouldn’t be taboo for activists to entertain compromise, and to acknowledge the reality of principled opposition to abortion. In the U.S., there has never been a better slogan for defending abortion rights than “safe, legal, and rare.”

The American court system encourages high-stakes, sweeping, binary judgments; a single Supreme Court ruling can remake the legal landscape. If Roe is repealed, then state-level campaigns need to establish the right to abortion access while accepting its limits. In England, where I live, abortion is low on the political agenda. The procedure is limited to 24 weeks into a pregnancy, with rare exceptions. That has proved to be a compromise most people can accept.

Highlight the Unintended Consequences

The #RepealTheEighth campaign foregrounded the experiences of women who desperately wanted to have a baby—only to discover that their fetus wasn’t viable. Even people who are opposed to abortion on religious grounds will find it hard not be moved by these stories.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post- Roe America

A total abortion ban means forcing women to give birth. Sometimes that will mean forcing a woman to carry a baby for 40 weeks who won’t live beyond his or her first breath. “To endure the full-term pregnancy, and to come home empty-handed and with the physical changes that come with pregnancy—it would have been awful,” the Irish writer Helen Serafinowicz said in an interview around the Irish referendum. She was living in England when she discovered that her 11-week fetus had a fatal skull condition in 2004, and had a termination; in Ireland, she would have had to continue the pregnancy: “I don’t know how I would have got through that, mentally or physically.” Barack Obama referenced the same situation in his statement on the Roe draft, asking voters to consider “the couple that have tried to have children for years, who are without any options when faced with the tragic reality of an unviable pregnancy.”

Stories such as that of Savita Halappanavar are also powerful. She died to preserve the life of a baby who would never have survived; the 31-year-old mother-to-be was deprived of her future by a law that ostensibly defended the right to life.

The political right will want to talk about the rare patients who get repeat abortions, or “career women” fixated on their own ambitions. Those women deserve access to abortion too. But nothing is wrong with highlighting the heartbreaking cases, nor with reminding people that most women who have abortions are already mothers . They know the extent of the time, money, and resources needed to take care of a child properly.

Do It Yourself

What impressed me in both Northern Ireland and the Republic was the grassroots nature of the activism involved. These women didn’t need permission from corporate donors or institutions; they built networks from the ground up, and they were more representative as a result.

In the U.S., the leading organization in this fight should be Planned Parenthood, but it has recently seemed distracted by arguments over its future direction and the wider storms convulsing the left. (Last year its chief executive wrote a self-flagellating op-ed apologizing for the political views of its founder and declaring, “What we don’t want to be, as an organization, is a Karen.”) Those hurt most by repealing Roe include poor women, Black women, undocumented women—the most marginalized among us. This is no time for navel-gazing, nor for organizations (and Democratic candidates) to fundraise on the back of pro-choice outrage without delivering results.

Rachel Rebouché and Mary Ziegler: There’s no knowing what will happen when Roe falls

Already, American activists are preparing for an “ abortion underground .” This is what happened in Ireland, too: covert networks to supply abortion pills by mail , volunteer networks to transport women to jurisdictions where terminations are allowed, dangerous knowledge passed via private messages and word of mouth.

Make the Fight Personal

Perhaps what American activists need most are faces . In 1972, more than 50 well-known American women who’d had abortions put their names to a letter in Ms. magazine , hoping to remove the stigma of the procedure. (In response to the Alito leak, the singer Phoebe Bridgers has done the same.) In Ireland, activists made sure that Savita Halappanavar’s name and image were just as prominent as the pictures of fetuses plastered on lampposts during the referendum campaign. In Derry, three women were prepared to put their lives on hold to make a protest.

Real adversity shows the difference between a luxury belief and a principle for which you are prepared to make sacrifices. Colette Devlin, Diana King, and Kitty O’Kane cared so much for other women’s futures, they were prepared to go to jail. No doubt the repeal of Roe will encourage more Americans to realize how fundamental abortion rights are to women’s ability to participate in society. “Courage calls to courage everywhere,” Millicent Garrett Fawcett wrote after the death of the suffragette Emily Davison, “and its voice cannot be denied.”

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Princeton Legal Journal

The First Amendment and the Abortion Rights Debate

Sofia Cipriano

Following Dobbs v. Jackson ’s (2022) reversal of Roe v. Wade (1973) — and the subsequent revocation of federal abortion protection — activists and scholars have begun to reconsider how to best ground abortion rights in the Constitution. In the past year, numerous Jewish rights groups have attempted to overturn state abortion bans by arguing that abortion rights are protected by various state constitutions’ free exercise clauses — and, by extension, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While reframing the abortion rights debate as a question of religious freedom is undoubtedly strategic, the Free Exercise Clause is not the only place to locate abortion rights: the Establishment Clause also warrants further investigation. 

Roe anchored abortion rights in the right to privacy — an unenumerated right with a long history of legal recognition. In various cases spanning the past two centuries, t he Supreme Court located the right to privacy in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments . Roe classified abortion as a fundamental right protected by strict scrutiny, meaning that states could only regulate abortion in the face of a “compelling government interest” and must narrowly tailor legislation to that end. As such, Roe ’s trimester framework prevented states from placing burdens on abortion access in the first few months of pregnancy. After the fetus crosses the viability line — the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb  — states could pass laws regulating abortion, as the Court found that   “the potentiality of human life”  constitutes a “compelling” interest. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) later replaced strict scrutiny with the weaker “undue burden” standard, giving states greater leeway to restrict abortion access. Dobbs v. Jackson overturned both Roe and Casey , leaving abortion regulations up to individual states. 

While Roe constituted an essential step forward in terms of abortion rights, weaknesses in its argumentation made it more susceptible to attacks by skeptics of substantive due process. Roe argues that the unenumerated right to abortion is implied by the unenumerated right to privacy — a chain of logic which twice removes abortion rights from the Constitution’s language. Moreover, Roe’s trimester framework was unclear and flawed from the beginning, lacking substantial scientific rationale. As medicine becomes more and more advanced, the arbitrariness of the viability line has grown increasingly apparent.  

As abortion rights supporters have looked for alternative constitutional justifications for abortion rights, the First Amendment has become increasingly more visible. Certain religious groups — particularly Jewish groups — have argued that they have a right to abortion care. In Generation to Generation Inc v. Florida , a religious rights group argued that Florida’s abortion ban (HB 5) constituted a violation of the Florida State Constitution: “In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act. As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.” Similar cases have arisen in Indiana and Texas. Absent constitutional protection of abortion rights, the Christian religious majorities in many states may unjustly impose their moral and ethical code on other groups, implying an unconstitutional religious hierarchy. 

Cases like Generation to Generation Inc v. Florida may also trigger heightened scrutiny status in higher courts; The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) places strict scrutiny on cases which “burden any aspect of religious observance or practice.”

But framing the issue as one of Free Exercise does not interact with major objections to abortion rights. Anti-abortion advocates contend that abortion is tantamount to murder. An anti-abortion advocate may argue that just as religious rituals involving human sacrifice are illegal, so abortion ought to be illegal. Anti-abortion advocates may be able to argue that abortion bans hold up against strict scrutiny since “preserving potential life” constitutes a “compelling interest.”

The question of when life begins—which is fundamentally a moral and religious question—is both essential to the abortion debate and often ignored by left-leaning activists. For select Christian advocacy groups (as well as other anti-abortion groups) who believe that life begins at conception, abortion bans are a deeply moral issue. Abortion bans which operate under the logic that abortion is murder essentially legislate a definition of when life begins, which is problematic from a First Amendment perspective; the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents the government from intervening in religious debates. While numerous legal thinkers have associated the abortion debate with the First Amendment, this argument has not been fully litigated. As an amicus brief filed in Dobbs by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Center for Inquiry, and American Atheists  points out, anti-abortion rhetoric is explicitly religious: “There is hardly a secular veil to the religious intent and positions of individuals, churches, and state actors in their attempts to limit access to abortion.” Justice Stevens located a similar issue with anti-abortion rhetoric in his concurring opinion in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) , stating: “I am persuaded that the absence of any secular purpose for the legislative declarations that life begins at conception and that conception occurs at fertilization makes the relevant portion of the preamble invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution.” Judges who justify their judicial decisions on abortion using similar rhetoric blur the line between church and state. 

Framing the abortion debate around religious freedom would thus address the two main categories of arguments made by anti-abortion activists: arguments centered around issues with substantive due process and moral objections to abortion. 

Conservatives may maintain, however, that legalizing abortion on the federal level is an Establishment Clause violation to begin with, since the government would essentially be imposing a federal position on abortion. Many anti-abortion advocates favor leaving abortion rights up to individual states. However, in the absence of recognized federal, constitutional protection of abortion rights, states will ban abortion. Protecting religious freedom of the individual is of the utmost importance  — the United States government must actively intervene in order to uphold the line between church and state. Protecting abortion rights would allow everyone in the United States to act in accordance with their own moral and religious perspectives on abortion. 

Reframing the abortion rights debate as a question of religious freedom is the most viable path forward. Anchoring abortion rights in the Establishment Clause would ensure Americans have the right to maintain their own personal and religious beliefs regarding the question of when life begins. In the short term, however, litigants could take advantage of Establishment Clauses in state constitutions. Yet, given the swing of the Court towards expanding religious freedom protections at the time of writing, Free Exercise arguments may prove better at securing citizens a right to an abortion. 

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

How To Win Any Argument About Abortion

So you're talking to someone who says something ignorant . And while you know that they're in the wrong, your words escape you. To make sure that doesn't happen, we've compiled a series of reference guides with the most common arguments — and your counter-arguments — for the most hot-button issues. Ahead, how to argue the pro-choice position .

Common Argument #1: A fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life, so abortion is murder.

The Pro-Choice Argument: I'm probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn't a life, as that's basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I'll be brief:

• A fetus can't survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother's body, unlike born human beings.
• Even if a fetus was alive, the "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use somebody else's body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs , for example, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.
• The "right to life" also doesn't imply a right to live by threatening somebody else's life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother (see below).
• A "right to life" is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else's will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?

Common Argument #2: If a woman is willing to have sex, she's knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant, and should be responsible for her actions.

The Pro-Choice Argument: You're asserting that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy, but that's just your opinion. I'd argue that if a mother knows she won't be able to provide for her child, it's actually more responsible to have an abortion, and in doing so prevent a whole lot of undue suffering and misery.

But let's look at this argument a bit further. If you think getting an abortion is "avoiding responsibility," that implies that it's a woman's responsibility to bear a child if she chooses to have sex. That sounds suspiciously like you're dictating what a woman's role and purpose is, and a lot less like you're making an argument about the life of a child.

Common Reply : No, because women can practice safe sex and avoid getting pregnant. If she refuses to use contraception and gets pregnant as a result, that's her fault, and her responsibility.

Your Rebuttal: Not everyone has easy access to contraception , nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it. But let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that everyone had access to free contraception and knew how to use it correctly.

Even then, no contraception is 100% effective. Presumably, you oppose abortions even in cases where contraception fails (and it does sometimes fail, even when used perfectly). If that's true, you're saying that, by merely choosing to have sex — with or without a condom — a woman becomes responsible for having a child. And that's a belief that has everything to do with judging a woman's behavior, and nothing to do with the value of life.

Common Argument #3: But I'm OK with abortions in cases of rape .

The Pro-Choice Argument: Why only in those cases? Are the lives of children who were conceived by rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived? If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you're saying if you if you oppose any legal abortions — then it shouldn't matter how that life was conceived.

Common Argument #4: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Your Response: Go home, Todd Akin , you're drunk.

Common Argument #5: Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.

The Pro-Choice Argument: This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn't the case. Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States. Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.

Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole "carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months" thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway . There's also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents.

In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn't address all of them.

Common Argument #6: When abortion is legal, women just use it as a form of birth control.

The Pro-Choice Argument: Do you have evidence of this? Considering that contraceptives are cheaper, easier, less painful, less time-consuming, less emotionally taxing, and more readily available than abortions, it seems odd to suggest that women who've already decided to use birth control would select abortion as their preferred method. It's more likely the opposite: Historical and contemporary data suggests that women will seek abortions regardless of whether or not they're legal, but that when birth control and contraceptives are more widely accessible, abortion rates go down.

Common Argument #7: Abortions are dangerous.

The Pro-Choice Argument: When performed by trained professionals, abortions are one of the safest procedures in medicine, with a death rate of less than 0.01%. The risk of dying while giving birth is roughly 13 times higher. Abortions performed by people without the requisite skills and training, however, are extremely unsafe. An estimated 68,000 women die every year from back alley abortions, which are generally most common when abortion is illegal and/or inaccessible.

If you'd like to examine the health impact of banning abortion, consider Romania, which banned abortions in 1966. That policy remained in place for about 23 years, during which time over 9,000 women died from unsafe abortions , and countless others were permanently injured. That's around two women dying every day. When the policy was reversed, maternal mortality rate plummeted to one-eighth of what it was at its peak under the no-abortion policy.

Abortions and maternal death rates in Romania, 1965-2010. Image credit: BMJ Group

The negative health effects of prohibiting abortion don't end with the mothers. Romania's abortion ban sparked a nationwide orphan crisis, as roughly 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in nightmarish state-run orphanages . Many of those orphans now suffer from severe mental and physical health problems, including reduced brain size, schizoaffective disorder, and sociopathy.

When abortion is illegal, it becomes exponentially more unsafe for both women and their children. You may not like the fact that women will seek abortions even when they're illegal, but it is undeniably a fact nonetheless.

Common Argument #8: What if Winston Churchill or Martin Luther King had been aborted?

Your Response: Are you saying abortion policy should be influenced by how good of a person a fetus ends up becoming? If that's the case, what if Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot had been aborted?

Common Argument #9: Many women who get abortions regret their decision later on.

The Pro-Choice Argument: This is a pretty common argument. As with shaming of teen moms, it pops up in subway ads.

This is a bad argument. Should the government ban people from doing things they sometimes regret? Think of everything you've ever regretted — not moving after college, dating the wrong person — and ask yourself if you wish there had been a law to prevent you from doing that thing. You probably don't, because you probably believe people should be able to choose their own paths in life regardless of whether they regret those choices later on. I agree, which is part of why I'm pro-choice .

Common Argument #10: Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for things they find morally disagreeable.

The Pro-Choice Argument: By that rationale, America also shouldn't have a military, since that's funded by taxes, and many taxpayers find American foreign policy morally disagreeable. Also, the Hyde Amendment prevents most public funds from going toward abortions. But that's a moot point, because these are two separate arguments. Believing that abortion should be legal doesn't require you to also believe that taxpayer dollars should fund abortions.

Common Argument #11: What if your mother had aborted you?

The Pro-Choice Argument: Well, if I'd never come into existence in the first place, I probably wouldn't have any strong feelings on the matter. Anyway, I love my mother very much and respect her right to make whatever decisions are right for her body and life.

The best pro-choice arguments , in summary:

• A "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life.
• Women do not have a "responsibility" to have children, and certainly don't assume such a responsibility by virtue of deciding to have sex.
• Outlawing abortion is very dangerous, both for women and their children.
• Adoption still requires women to carry a baby to term and then give birth, both of which are also inherently dangerous.
• Abortions, on the other hand, are quite safe.
• Banning abortion violates a woman's right to control her own body.

This article was originally published on March 5, 2014

Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion

Since the Supreme Court’s historic decision Roe v. Wade , the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in United States history. With the passing of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, people are up in arms, passionately defending their opinions. Social media feeds have become a revolving door of overly simplified arguments, emotional personal anecdotes, and people defending their closely held beliefs. Conservative Americans, including many students at BYU, often misunderstand the pro-choice stance.

No One Is Pro-Abortion

Pro-choice advocates are not pro-abortion, but pro-choice, and that is an important distinction. We believe that every woman should have access to quality reproductive care, including abortions when necessary, and that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare . And by rare, we really mean rare. While it is impossible to consider all the potential circumstances that might elicit consideration of an abortion, this phrase generally refers to instances of rape, incest, when the life of the mother is jeopardized, when a fetus is no longer viable, or when the circumstances or environment of the child would be severely damaging or abusive. The idea that women seek out abortions because they love being sexually promiscuous and they just can’t be bothered with a baby is a lie, a misperception unrepresentative of why women seek abortions. Most women don’t make the decision to have an abortion casually. They often wrestle with the decision in profound ways in consultation with their spouse, family, close friends, religious leaders, or medical professionals.

Pro-choice advocates also strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child. This can be done by ensuring women have safe and healthy pregnancies, by providing services during pregnancy and after childbirth, including adoption and social support services, as well as providing protections for women against pregnancy discrimination [1].

A Symptom of the Problem

We can all agree that abortion should be a rare necessity, and the only way to accomplish this goal is to prevent unplanned pregnancy in the first place. This can be done by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and religious communities, ensuring access to accurate information about contraception, and making contraception more affordable and widely available [6] [7]. The current administration has cut funding to such teen pregnancy prevention programs and has instead proposed allocating millions of dollars towards failed abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information [8] [9].

Since Roe v. Wade , the definition of the right to choose has evolved and expanded, but the principle of women’s autonomy has remained the same. In a subsequent Supreme Court case,

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that “the ability of a women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” [2]. An ability to control reproductive life includes access to comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue or end a pregnancy, and the resources that make that choice possible.

Are we giving women the resources that allow them to make the choice to keep a child? Have we given them the support services that they need? Often pro-life advocates fervently support the child in the womb, but they abort the child in other ways as soon as it is born. They abort the child through lack of healthcare, education, affordable housing, welfare programs, and other life-sustaining necessities.

Limiting Access Is Not a Solution

The most prominent proposed solution among pro-life organizations and supporters is to limit access to abortions. However, even if the United States outlawed all abortions, women who desperately needed an abortion would still have alternatives, but those options would be extremely unsafe and unsanitary. Before abortion was legalized, women frequently tried to induce miscarriages by using coat hangers, knitting needles, radiator flush, or by going to unsafe "back-alley" abortionists [3]. The World Health Organization estimated that unsafe abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths worldwide each year, many of those in countries where safe and legal abortion services are difficult or impossible to access [5].

Echoes of Oppression

The abortion debate highlights an idea that has long been upheld and promoted around the world: that women never take priority. Throughout history, the U.S. government has told women what they can and cannot do. Women were told that they couldn’t own property, open a bank account, vote, get divorced, attend college, or work outside the home, among many, many other things. For so many women, the pro-life argument echoes the underlying principle that perpetuated the subordination of women for hundreds of years: that their rights are secondary. Women’s rights have never been prioritized. With abortion, the rights of the woman are being considered secondarily, if at all. To focus solely on the rights of the fetus negates its mother's value, personhood, and human rights. We should, therefore, give great consideration to mothers’ rights as well as to those of the unborn.

[1] https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/#reproductive-health

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html

[3] http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/25/news/la-ol-the-coat-hanger-symbol-of-dangerous-preroe-abortions-is-back-20140324

[4] https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/public-health-impact-legal-abortion-30-years-later

[5] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42976/9241591803.pdf;jsessionid=FC4673BED7C61B20B8123E60FFA80D23?sequence=1

[6] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024658&utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner#s3

[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

[8] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues

[9] https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/grant-programs/funding-opportunities/index.html

[10] https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

Key Arguments From Both Sides of the Abortion Debate

Mark Wilson / Staff / Getty Images

• Reproductive Rights
• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government
• B.A., English Language and Literature, Well College

Many points come up in the abortion debate . Here's a look at abortion from both sides : 10 arguments for abortion and 10 arguments against abortion, for a total of 20 statements that represent a range of topics as seen from both sides.

Pro-Life Arguments

• Since life begins at conception,   abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life.
• No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
• Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
• An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies is increased if other factors such as smoking are present, the chance of a miscarriage increases in some cases,   and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.  
• In the instance of rape and incest, taking certain drugs soon after the event can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant.   Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished.
• Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception.
• For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence .
• Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
• Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterward.
• Abortion sometimes causes psychological pain and stress.  

Pro-Choice Arguments

• Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester when a fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord to the mother.   As such, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.
• The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception,   but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?
• Adoption is not an alternative to abortion because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies; less than 3% of White unmarried women and less than 2% of Black​ unmarried women.
• Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women who have an abortion do so in their first trimester.   Medical abortions have a very low risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth.  
• In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim.   Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.
• Abortion is not used as a form of contraception . Pregnancy can occur even with contraceptive use. Few women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion.  
• The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
• Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth.
• Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave school; receive inadequate prenatal care; or develop mental health problems.  
• Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.  

Additional References

• Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. " American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values ." American Journal of Political Science 39.4 (1995): 1055–82. Print.
• Armitage, Hannah. " Political Language, Uses and Abuses: How the Term 'Partial Birth' Changed the Abortion Debate in the United States ." Australasian Journal of American Studies 29.1 (2010): 15–35. Print.
• Gillette, Meg. " Modern American Abortion Narratives and the Century of Silence ." Twentieth Century Literature 58.4 (2012): 663–87. Print.
• Kumar, Anuradha. " Disgust, Stigma, and the Politics of Abortion ." Feminism & Psychology 28.4 (2018): 530–38. Print.
• Ziegler, Mary. " The Framing of a Right to Choose: Roe V. Wade and the Changing Debate on Abortion Law ." Law and History Review 27.2 (2009): 281–330. Print.

“ Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception .”  Princeton University , The Trustees of Princeton University.

“ Long-Term Risks of Surgical Abortion .”  GLOWM, doi:10.3843/GLOWM.10441

Patel, Sangita V, et al. “ Association between Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Abortions .”  Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS , Medknow Publications, July 2010, doi:10.4103/2589-0557.75030

Raviele, Kathleen Mary. “ Levonorgestrel in Cases of Rape: How Does It Work? ”  The Linacre Quarterly , Maney Publishing, May 2014, doi:10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000017

Reardon, David C. “ The Abortion and Mental Health Controversy: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Common Ground Agreements, Disagreements, Actionable Recommendations, and Research Opportunities .”  SAGE Open Medicine , SAGE Publications, 29 Oct. 2018, doi:10.1177/2050312118807624

“ CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs .” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Nov. 2019.

Bixby Center for Reproductive Health. “ Complications of Surgical Abortion : Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology .”  LWW , doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a2b756

" Sexual Violence: Prevalence, Dynamics and Consequences ." World Health Organizaion.

Homco, Juell B, et al. “ Reasons for Ineffective Pre-Pregnancy Contraception Use in Patients Seeking Abortion Services .”  Contraception , U.S. National Library of Medicine, Dec. 2009, doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.05.127

" Working With Pregnant & Parenting Teens Tip Sheet ." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Major, Brenda, et al. " Abortion and Mental Health: Evaluating the Evidence ." American Psychological Association, doi:10.1037/a0017497

• The Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice Debate
• Abortion on Demand: A Second Wave Feminist Demand
• Abortion Facts and Statistics in the 21st Century
• The 1969 Redstockings Abortion Speakout
• The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision
• Biography of Margaret Sanger
• Is Abortion Legal in Every State?
• Biography of Norma McCorvey, 'Roe' in the Roe v. Wade Case
• Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Reproductive Rights
• Pro-Choice Quotes
• Roe v. Wade
• 1970s Feminism Timeline
• 8 Major Issues Facing Women Today
• The Best Quotes From 19th Century Feminist Lucy Stone
• Oppression and Women's History
• Understanding Why Abortion Is Legal in the United States

If you’re pro-life , you might already be  pro-choice

Postdoctoral Fellow, Philosophy, University of Toronto

Disclosure statement

Matthew Scarfone receives funding from Fonds de recherche du Québec en Société et culture (FRQSC).

University of Toronto provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of Toronto provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Many people are worried that the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg puts protections of reproductive rights at increased risk in the United States. With a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court likely to be filled by a president and Senate favouring increased restrictions on these rights, the survival of Roe v. Wade — which ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s liberty to have an abortion — is gravely threatened.

Public debate about abortion rights is likely to get heated. So it seems appropriate to revisit the moral arguments used to defend both the pro-choice and pro-life positions.

As an ethicist who researches moral beliefs, I examine the moral justifications people give for the things they believe. You likely already know where you stand when it comes to the morality of abortion. But I think going over the arguments supporting long-held views can show an overlooked inconsistency in the pro-life view. It’s an inconsistency that I am hopeful can lead people who are pro-life to support a woman’s right to choose.

Rights and claims

Let’s remind ourselves of the basics. Pro-choice arguments usually appeal to the mother’s right to bodily autonomy , and it is because of the mother’s right to bodily autonomy that abortion is generally morally permissible. Pro-life arguments usually appeal to the fetus’s right to life , and it is because of the fetus’s right to life that abortion is generally morally forbidden.

More sophisticated versions of these arguments appeal to different weighing claims. Someone who is pro-choice can accept that a fetus does indeed have a right to life but insist this right is outweighed by the mother’s right to bodily autonomy . Likewise, someone who is pro-life can accept that a mother does indeed have a right to bodily autonomy but insist that this right is outweighed by the fetus’s right to life .

Read more: A concise history of the US abortion debate

But these two positions are not monoliths. Some people who are pro-life believe there are important exceptions regarding abortion. A moderate pro-life position says that abortion is generally morally forbidden, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, or when the pregnancy is caused by incest or rape. I’ll focus on the last of these exceptions here. Other pro-life defenders, who are more extreme, reject such qualifiers.

This difference is evident among U.S. Republicans. In May 2019, a coalition of pro-life activists urged the Republican National Committee (RNC) to oppose any exceptions for rape within newly passed abortion laws, because “the value of human life is not determined by the circumstances of one’s conception or birth.”

But in the same month, Donald Trump tweeted: “… I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions — Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother …,” echoing a belief held by Ronald Reagan .

Justifiable exceptions

The moderate pro-life position is also widely shared among the general public. Nearly 75 per cent of Americans think that abortion should be permissible in cases of rape. Since Americans are nearly equally split between pro-choice and pro-life positions, we can assume that many people who are pro-life are among those who think that rape exceptions are justified.

While the moderate pro-life position has broad support among the general public, it receives very little attention from moral philosophers. In a recent paper , I have suggested that one reason for this surprising oversight is because the popular view is actually incoherent. But it is not for the reason stated in the letter to the RNC. Rather, bringing out the incoherency requires us to unpack the underlying moral justification for the view.

There seem to be three underlying claims for the moderate pro-life position. The first claim is: a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, or else at some point during gestation.

The moral point here is that human beings have a right to life, and because a fetus is a human being it too has a right to life. Many people who are pro-choice might deny this claim, but let’s accept it for the sake of argument.

The second underlying claim is: a right to life is stronger than, or outweighs, a right to bodily autonomy.

As we saw above, this is the weighing claim familiar to pro-life positions. It says that a right to life is morally weighty enough to tilt away from a right to bodily autonomy.

And the third underlying claim is: abortion is permissible for a pregnancy caused by rape.

With the three claims on the table, what we can notice is that the third claim is an excusing condition on the second claim. The idea here is that while a fetus’s right to life normally outweighs a mother’s right to bodily autonomy, when the fetus is conceived as result of rape abortion becomes permissible. And that means that the moral justification for the moderate pro-life positions stems from the type of act that rape is. Rape is of course an extreme violation of someone’s autonomy.

Read more: Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? And if it does, what happens to abortion rights?

Moral significance

But now the incoherency reveals itself. Consider the following gloss: the moderate pro-life position says that a right to life is stronger than, or outweighs, a right to bodily autonomy, except when the fetus that has the right to life is created by a violation of … bodily autonomy.

Once we put in the work to unpack the moderate pro-life position, we see that it makes an appeal to the moral significance of bodily autonomy. Crucially, it does this while attempting to explain why the act of rape excuses the ordinary weighting of life over autonomy. But this is incoherent. It says that life is more important than autonomy, except when autonomy is more important than life.

When someone allows for an exception to abortion in cases of rape, they are acknowledging that there are violations of autonomy that can justify abortion. And if some violations of autonomy are appropriate grounds, then it cannot be true that a right to life is morally weightier than a right to bodily autonomy.

Some might think that realizing this inconsistency should push moderate pro-lifers to a more extreme position. But I think that the hard part is convincing someone that autonomy considerations have any relevance regarding reproductive ethics. People who accept the moderate pro-life position are already sympathetic to this point. I believe they can come around to thinking that the law should respect the importance of autonomy more broadly.

• Reproductive rights
• US Supreme Court
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Deputy Social Media Producer

Research Fellow /Senior Research Fellow – Implementation Science

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Study That Debunks Most Anti-Abortion Arguments

By Margaret Talbot

There is a kind of social experiment you might think of as a What if? study. It would start with people who are similar in certain basic demographic ways and who are standing at the same significant fork in the road. Researchers could not assign participants to take one path or another—that would be wildly unethical. But let’s say that some more or less arbitrary rule in the world did the assigning for them. In such circumstances, researchers could follow the resulting two groups of people over time, sliding-doors style, to see how their lives panned out differently. It would be like speculative fiction, only true, and with statistical significance.

A remarkable piece of research called the Turnaway Study, which began in 2007, is essentially that sort of experiment. Over three years, a team of researchers, led by a demographer named Diana Greene Foster, at the University of California, San Francisco, recruited 1,132 women from the waiting rooms of thirty abortion clinics in twenty-one states. Some of the women would go on to have abortions, but others would be turned away, because they had missed the fetal gestational limit set by the clinic. Foster and her colleagues decided to compare the women in the two groups—those who received the abortion they sought and those who were compelled to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term—on a variety of measures over time, interviewing them twice a year for up to five years.

The study is important, in part, because of its ingenious design. It included only women whose pregnancies were unwanted enough that they were actively seeking an abortion, which meant the researchers were not making the mistake that some previous studies of unplanned conceptions had—“lumping the happy surprises in with the total disasters,” as Foster puts it. In terms of age, race, income level, and health status, the two groups of women closely resembled each other, as well as abortion patients nationwide. (Foster refers to the study’s participants as women because, to her knowledge, there were no trans men or non-binary people among them.) Seventy per cent of the women who were denied abortions at the first clinic where they sought them carried the unwanted pregnancies to term. Others miscarried or were able to obtain late abortions elsewhere, and Foster and her colleagues followed the trajectories of those in the latter group as well.

While you might guess that those who were turned away had messier lives—after all, they were getting to the clinic later than the seemingly more proactive women who made the deadline—that did not turn out to be the case. Some of the women who got their abortions (half of the total participants) did so just under the wire; among the women in the study who were denied abortions (a quarter of the total), some had missed the limit by a matter of only a few days. (The remaining quarter terminated their pregnancies in the first trimester, which is when ninety per cent of abortions in the United States occur.) The women who were denied abortions were on average more likely to live below the poverty line than the women who managed to get them. (One of the main reasons that people seek abortions later in pregnancy is the need to raise money to pay for the procedure and for travel expenses.) But, in general, Foster writes, the two groups “were remarkably similar at the first interview. Their lives diverged thereafter in ways that were directly attributable to whether they received an abortion.”

Over the past several years, findings from the Turnaway Study have come out in scholarly journals and, on a few occasions, gotten splashy media coverage. Now Foster has published a patiently expository precis of all the findings in a new book, “ The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion .” The over-all impression it leaves is that abortion, far from harming most women, helps them in measurable ways. Moreover, when people assess what will happen in their lives if they have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, they are quite often proven right. That might seem like an obvious point, but much of contemporary anti-abortion legislation is predicated on the idea that competent adults can’t really know what’s at stake in deciding whether to bear a child or not. Instead, they must be subjected to waiting periods to think it over (as though they can’t be trusted to have done so already), presented with (often misleading) information about the supposed medical risks and emotional fallout of the procedure, and obliged to look at ultrasounds of the embryo or fetus. And such scans are often framed, with breathtaking disingenuousness, as a right extended to people—what the legal scholar Carol Sanger calls “the right to be persuaded against exercising the right you came in with.”

Maybe the first and most fundamental question for a study like this to consider is how women feel afterward about their decisions to have an abortion. In the Turnaway Study, over ninety-five per cent of the women who received an abortion and did an interview five years out said that it had been the right choice for them. It’s possible that the women who remained in the study that long were disproportionately inclined to see things that way—maybe if you were feeling shame or remorse about an abortion you’d be less up for talking about it every six months in a phone interview with a researcher. (Foster suggests that people experiencing regrets might actually be more inclined to participate, but, to me, the first scenario makes more psychological sense.) Still, ninety-five per cent is a striking figure. And it’s especially salient, again, in light of anti-choice arguments, which often stress the notion that many of the quarter to third of all American women who have an abortion will be wracked with guilt about their decision. (That’s an awful lot of abject contrition.) You can pick at the study for its retention rate—and some critics, particularly on the anti-abortion side, have. Nine hundred and fifty-six of the original thousand-plus women who were recruited did the first interview. Fifty-eight per cent of them did the final interview. But, as Foster pointed out in an e-mail to me, on average, the women in the study completed an impressive 8.4 of the eleven interviews, and some of the data in the study—death records and credit reports—cover all 1,132 women who were originally enrolled.

To the former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others, it seemed “unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.” In a 2007 abortion-case ruling, he wrote that “severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.” It can , but the epidemiologists, psychologists, statisticians, and other researchers who evaluated the Turnaway Study found it was not likely. “Some events do cause lifetime damage”—childhood abuse is one of them—“but abortion is not common among these,” Foster writes. In the short term, the women who were denied abortions had worse mental health—higher anxiety and lower self-esteem. In the longer run, the researchers found “no long-term differences between women who receive and women who are denied an abortion in depression, anxiety, PTSD, self-esteem, life satisfaction, drug abuse, or alcohol abuse.” Abortion didn’t weigh heavily in determining mental health one way or the other. Foster and her co-authors note, in an earlier article, that “relief remained the most commonly felt emotion” among women who got the abortions they sought. That relief persisted, but its intensity dissipated over time.

Other positive impacts were more lasting. Women in the study who received the abortion they sought were more likely to be in a relationship they described as “very good.” (After two years, the figure was forty-seven per cent, vs. twenty-eight per cent for the women turned away.) If they had been involved with a physically abusive man at the time of the unwanted pregnancy, they were less likely to still be experiencing violence, for the simple reason that they were less likely to be in contact with him. (Several of the participants interviewed for the book talk about not wanting to be tethered to a terrible partner by having a child together.) Women who got the abortion were more likely to become pregnant intentionally in the next five years than women who did not. They were less likely to be on public assistance and to report that they did not have enough money to pay for food, housing, and transportation. When they had children at home already, those children were less likely to be living in poverty. Based on self-reports, their physical health was somewhat better. Two of the women in the study who were denied abortions died from childbirth-related complications; none of the women who received abortions died as a result. That is in keeping with other data attesting to the general safety of abortion. One of Foster’s colleagues, Ushma Upadhyay, analyzed complications after abortions in California’s state Medicaid program, for example, and found that they occurred in two per cent of the cases—a lower percentage than for wisdom-tooth extraction (seven per cent) and certainly for childbirth (twenty-nine per cent). Indeed, maternal mortality has been rising in the U.S.—it’s now more than twice as high as it was in 1987, and has risen even more steeply for Black women, due, in part, to racial disparities in prenatal care and the quality of hospitals where women deliver.

Yet, as Foster points out, many of the new state laws restricting abortion suggest that it is a uniquely dangerous procedure, one for which layers of regulation must be concocted, allegedly to protect women. The Louisiana law that the Supreme Court struck down last Monday imposed just such a rule—namely, a requirement that doctors performing abortions hold admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles away. As Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion noted, “The evidence shows, among other things, that the fact that hospital admissions for abortion are vanishingly rare means that, unless they also maintain active OB/GYN practices, abortion providers in Louisiana are unlikely to have any recent in-hospital experience.” Since hospitals often require such experience in order to issue admitting privileges, abortion providers would be caught in a Catch-22, unable to obtain the privileges because, on actual medical grounds, they didn’t need them. The result of such a law, had it gone into effect, would have been exactly what was intended: a drastic reduction in the number of doctors legally offering abortions in the state.

The Turnaway Study’s findings are welcome ones for anyone who supports reproductive justice. But they shouldn’t be necessary for it. The overwhelming majority of women who received abortions and stayed in the study for the full five years did not regret their decision. But the vast majority of women who’d been denied abortions reported that they no longer wished that they’d been able to end the pregnancy, after an actual child of four or five was in the world. And that’s good, too—you’d hope they would love that child wholeheartedly, and you’d root for their resilience and happiness.

None of that changes the fundamental principle of human autonomy: people have to be able to make their own decisions in matters that profoundly and intimately affect their own bodies and the course of their lives. Regret and ambivalence, the ways that one decision necessarily precludes others, are inextricable facts of life, and they are also fluid and personal. Guessing the extent to which individuals may feel such emotions, hypothetically, in the future, is not a basis for legislative bans and restrictions.

The Turnaway Study will be understood, criticized, and used politically, however carefully conceived and painstakingly executed the research was. Given that inevitability, it’s worth underlining the most helpful political work that the study does. In light of its findings, the rationale for so many recent abortion restrictions—namely, that abortion is uniquely harmful to the people who choose it—simply topples.

Books & Fiction

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Eliza Griswold

By Dhruv Khullar

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

The Pro-Choice Argument

There are those who hold that contraception unfairly manipulates the workings of nature, and others who cannot see the fetus as a child until the umbilical cord is cut. Invoking an almost religious fervor on both sides of the issue, abortion is one of the most emotionally potent present political controversies. Motherhood is a powerful institution in American life, and both the "Pro-choice" (supporting a woman's right to choose) and the "Pro-life" (anti-abortion) forces see the other as attacking the foundations of the mother-infant bond.

Social analysis argues forcibly for the need for safe, legal and affordable abortions. Approximately 1 million women had abortions annually until the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, and abortion had become the leading cause of maternal death and mutilation (40 deaths/100,000 abortions compared to 40 deaths/100,000 live births according to National Abortion Rights Action league.) An estimated 9000 rape victims become pregnant each year (FBI 1973); 100,000 cases of incest occur yearly (National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, 1978). Two-thirds of teenage pregnancies are not planned, because many do not have adequate access to contraceptives (NARAL). And the taxpayer price of supporting a child on welfare is far greater than that of a Medicaid abortion. But the issue that provokes such anger surrounds the fetus's right to life--its status as a potential human being. Anti-abortionist proponents usually take the position that conception is life and therefore abortion is murder and violates the rights of the unborn, or that there is an inherent value in life and abortion is murder because it destroys that value.

The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that the unborn fetus had no constitutional rights until the third trimester (24-28 weeks), as it is incapable of functioning independently from the mother until that time. Right-to-Lifers claim that because the fetus will develop into a human being, it demands the same paternalistic protection that is extended to animals, children and others subject to exploitation and maltreatment. The fetus must be accorded the same constitutional rights as its mother.

Two arguments delineate the problems in giving the fetus these equivalent rights. The first looks at individual rights as the products of a social doctrine. Animals and children are unavoidably present within a society, and to ensure that they remain functioning members of that society they must be protected from exploitation by other societal members. Different political platforms advocate different rights--the right to free medical care, the right to minimal taxation--but all demarcate the interaction of the individual within the group. A person's rights protect him from future harassment, but to actually obtain those rights he must already be a member of the group providing him with those protections. An Australian cannot lay claim to American rights until he is on American soil (or its equivalent). He may have a guarantee that should he enter the United States, he will be accorded many of those protections. But the guarantee depends on his entrance onto American territory. In analogous fashion, until the fetus is actually, not potentially, a member of society, it does not have constitutional rights.

One could object that the fetus in the womb is as signally present in society as the child in the crib, that each are equally members of society. Yet surely the conception of "member" involves some minimal interaction. The fetus reacts to society of the outside world solely through the medium of the mother. Strictly speaking, then, society has no legal responsibility to the fetus, but rather to the mother.

This seems like a rather harsh position, but we can distinguish between the rights of the fetus and the action that a mother might feel morally compelled to take. Consider the following situation: suppose you were to return home one day and find a stranger camped out in your living room and peacefully eating the ham sandwich you saved for dinner. You would be tempted to throw him out in the street. Almost everyone could agree that you had the right to eject him.

But suppose he told you that he could not live outside of your house; perhaps one of his enemies waits outside your door. Moreover, he informs you that he needs food and clothing and someone to talk to--he needs your presence much of the day. He becomes more demanding: you must work less, earn less, give up jogging.

Introduce a complication: your food is strictly rationed, or perhaps your heating, on subsistence level for a single person. If the stranger stays with you, your life will be seriously endangered. You might be very upset, but if it came down to the wire you would probably kick him out of the house. Again, most people would agree you were within your rights to do so.

The difficulty of course arises when it would be possible for you to support him and take care of him, but you would rather not. You might agree if the demand were only for an evening, but hesitate if it were for the rest of your life. Do rights then depend upon the time factor? You could claim a certain moral responsibility towards another human being. But it is hard to say that he has the right to force you to support him. You are not legally required to help an old lady across the street.

One counterargument declares that willing intercourse implies acceptance of a possible pregnancy--that in effect you invited the stranger in, that you knew what you were in for and that he now has the right to demand your help. But faulty contraception is like a broken window. When you return to your suite and find your stereo missing, do you accede the thief's right to take it because your window is easily pried open? The abortion issue thus forces a clarification of the nature of the individual and his social rights. Although we may feel morally constrained to protect the future child, the fetus does not have the right to force us to do so. In the traditional dichotomy of church and state, to restrict abortion is to legislate morality.

The staunchest opposition comes from those who hold absolutely that conception is life. But belief in the inherent value of life is not a trite axiom: it avows some faith in the quality of existence beyond the moral injunction "Thou shalt not kill." It becomes easy to see as hypocritical those anti-abortionists--particularly men--who condone extra-marital intercourse (or even intramarital intercourse) yet would refuse to financially and emotionally support the child conceived because of faulty contraception. The only morally consistent value-of-life position is to have intercourse only if one is willing to accept a child as a possible consequence, and participate in the quality of the child's life. This in part lies behind the Catholic prohibition of premarital sex.

As a personal doctrine few would reproach those who follow it. But pragmatics belie its application to all society, rape being the prime instance where the woman is not free to choose to become pregnant. The restriction of federal support to cases of rape, incest and probable death of the mother suggests an interesting quality-of-life argument: that potentiality is not absolute but must be prorated. Due to society's dread of incest, such a mother and her child would be spared a psychologically unbearable life. In case of danger to the mother's life we do not hear that the 'child' has potentially far more years of happy, productive life than the mother. Rather, the argument runs that the mother's life should not be sacrificed for the child who would bear such a tremendous burden.

Yet an unwanted child may be born into a household with an equally heavy psychological toll. If the potentiality of life thesis rests on an understanding of the inner qualities of life, then abortion is a necessity rather than a crime. Those who deny the right to an abortion under any circumstances fail to see that their argument undercuts itself. Abortion provides a unique understanding of the "inherent good" of existence. It is morally irresponsible to believe that a pregnancy must be brought to term even in case of the mother's death simply because it is a matter of nature and out of our hands when we have the medical means to save the mother. The case involves a comparison of the life-value of the mother and the child: the final decision must evaluate the process of existence--the value of life as it is lived. The inherent value of life cannot be an a priori constant if a choice is to be made between two lives.

Once the quality of life-as-it-is-lived is introduced into the argument, we can say that abortion provides the possibility of improving that quality. Motherhood is a remarkably special bond between mother and child, perhaps the most important relationship we ever have. It requires tremendous emotional capacities, and raising children should be one of the most conscious decisions we make. Many of those who have abortions when young have children later in life, when they are more emotionally and financially equipped to handle them. Contraception is at most 99 per cent safe, and abortion must be available to allow women the freedom to provide the optimum conditions for their child's growth.

According to a 1978 Clark University study, 83 per cent of Massachusetts supports the woman's right to choose. But the trend of recent legislation is distinctly anti-abortion, the result of an extremely well-organized and funded "Pro-life" movement (which some link to the New Right). On the federal level, the 1976-7 Hyde Amendment, a rider on the Labor-HEW appropriations bill, cut off federally funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and "medically necessary" instances, defined by the Supreme Court as long-lasting physical or psychological damage to the mother's health.

In 1977 this clause cut 99 per cent of all reimbursements (250,000-300,000 annually prior to the cut-off); this year "medically necessary" has been replaced by probable death of the mother. Military women are similarly restricted under the Dornan Amendment; the Young Amendment funds no abortions at all for Peace Corps women. Employers may refuse to include abortion coverage in their company health plan under the Beard Amendment. Fifteen states have called for a constitutional convention to introduce the prohibition of all abortions: 19 more would fulfill the requisite number of 34.

In Massachusetts the Doyle Bill would cut off state funds in the same manner as the Hyde Amendment. Formerly an adjunct to the budget it was passed and signed as a bill this year. Appealed by MORAL (the Massachusetts Organization for the Repeal of Abortion Laws), the bill is under injunction and pending review by the Federal District Court on the basis of a Supreme Court decision that all medically necessary services must be available to the poor. As of last May, hospitals are no longer required to perform abortions upon demand except in case of probable death to the mother. Legislation restricting abortions to hospitals with full obstetrical care (rather than women's health clinics), now before the Massachusetts House, could place the woman in a double bind. Also under Massachusetts debate is an "Informed Consent" bill which essentially amounts to harrassment: the bill requires spouse and parental notification, with consent of parents or courts for minors, full information concerning the viability and appearance of the fetus, description of the aborting technique, anad a 24-hour waiting period after the 'information session' before the abortion could be obtained.

There is a real danger that anti-abortion legislation could become increasingly more restrictive. It already discriminates against women in lower economic brackets. The power of the pro-life people should not be underestimated: they have targeted 12 Congressmen for defeat in 1980, among them Morris Udall and Birch Bayh. We need to inform our politicians of their pro-choice constituency and reverse the further tightening of the over-restrictive and discriminatory legislation.

Tanya Luhrmann '80-3 is working for Abortion Rights Action Week.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Abortion Pros and Cons

This essay about the abortion debate examines the complex array of perspectives surrounding the topic. It into the arguments of advocates for abortion rights, who emphasize bodily autonomy and the necessity of safe abortion services. Conversely, opponents assert the sanctity of life from conception and express concerns about the societal implications of abortion. The essay also touches on the practical realities faced by marginalized communities and the challenges policymakers encounter in reconciling divergent viewpoints within legal frameworks. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of dialogue and understanding in navigating this contentious issue.

How it works

Exploring the labyrinthine terrain of the abortion discourse, one is confronted with a kaleidoscope of divergent viewpoints, each casting its own unique shadow on the broader tapestry of ethical contemplation. Amidst the cacophony of voices, individuals grapple with the intricate interplay of personal autonomy, the sanctity of life, and the societal ramifications of reproductive choice.

Advocates for abortion rights champion the cause of bodily autonomy, vigorously defending a woman’s prerogative to make decisions regarding her own body free from external coercion.

At the heart of their advocacy lies the conviction that access to safe and legal abortion services is paramount for safeguarding women’s health and well-being. They underscore the dire consequences of restricting abortion access, shining a light on the harrowing realities of unsafe procedures and the grave risks they pose. For proponents of abortion rights, the ability to control one’s reproductive destiny is not merely a matter of convenience but an indispensable human right, pivotal for advancing gender equality and societal progress.

Conversely, opponents of abortion frame their argument within the framework of moral absolutism, contending that every embryo and fetus possesses an intrinsic right to life that must be fiercely protected. Rooted in religious doctrine and philosophical reflection, the pro-life stance upholds the sanctity of human existence from the moment of conception. From this perspective, abortion is not merely a medical procedure but a moral transgression of profound magnitude, tantamount to the extinguishing of a nascent life before it has had the opportunity to blossom.

Beyond the theoretical debates, the abortion discourse spills over into the realm of practical realities, where socio-economic disparities and systemic inequities loom large over reproductive decision-making. For marginalized communities grappling with limited access to healthcare and educational opportunities, unwanted pregnancies can exacerbate existing hardships and perpetuate cycles of poverty and disenfranchisement. Advocates for abortion rights argue that denying women the autonomy to terminate unwanted pregnancies only serves to deepen inequalities and deprive them of agency over their own destinies.

Conversely, opponents of abortion raise poignant concerns about the societal consequences of normalizing what they perceive as the termination of innocent life. They point to research suggesting potential psychological ramifications for women who undergo abortions, cautioning against the emotional toll of a decision freighted with profound moral implications. From their perspective, society must prioritize the protection of vulnerable lives and offer support and resources to women facing unplanned pregnancies, rather than promoting abortion as a solution to complex social challenges.

As the pendulum of public opinion swings and policymakers grapple with the task of navigating competing values within the framework of law and governance, finding common ground on the issue of abortion remains an elusive aspiration. Yet, amidst the cacophony of discordant voices, there exists an opportunity for dialogue and understanding—a chance to transcend entrenched ideologies and embrace the multifaceted complexity of the human experience.

In conclusion, the abortion discourse serves as a crucible for grappling with the fundamental questions that define our shared humanity. It is a testament to our capacity for empathy, compassion, and reasoned deliberation in the face of profound moral disagreement. As we navigate the ethically charged terrain of abortion, let us strive to approach this contentious issue with humility, empathy, and a willingness to engage with perspectives that challenge our own. For it is through such dialogue and introspection that we may hope to forge a path towards a more just and equitable society for all.

Cite this page

Abortion Pros and Cons. (2024, Apr 07). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

"Abortion Pros and Cons." PapersOwl.com , 7 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Pros and Cons . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/ [Accessed: 18 Apr. 2024]

"Abortion Pros and Cons." PapersOwl.com, Apr 07, 2024. Accessed April 18, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/

"Abortion Pros and Cons," PapersOwl.com , 07-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/. [Accessed: 18-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Abortion Pros and Cons . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/abortion-pros-and-cons/ [Accessed: 18-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Asian Bioeth Rev
• v.14(1); 2022 Jan

The Moral Significance of Abortion Inconsistency Arguments

William simkulet.

1 Park University, Parkville, MO USA

2 Dodge City Community College, Dodge City, KS USA

Most opponents of abortion (OA) believe fetuses matter . Critics argue that OA act inconsistently with regards to fetal life, seeking to restrict access to induced abortion, but largely ignoring spontaneous abortion and the creation of surplus embryos by IVF. Nicholas Colgrove, Bruce Blackshaw, and Daniel Rodger call such arguments inconsistency arguments and contend they do not matter. They present three objections to these arguments — the other beliefs, other actions, and hypocrisy objection. Previously, I argued these objections fail and threaten to undermine ethical inquiry. Colgrove et al. have recently replied, but here, I argue their reply fails as well and raises a new criticism of the other actions’ objection. This essay sets out to show, as well as any philosophical argument can, that inconsistency arguments are morally significant.

Introduction

Nicholas Colgrove, Bruce Blackshaw, and Daniel Rodger ( 2020 ) set out to show that inconsistency arguments “do not matter”; by inconsistency argument , they mean to pick out a variety (Fleck 1979 ; Murphy 1985 ; Ord 2008 ; Lovering 2013 , 2014 , 2017 , 2020 ; Berg 2017 ; Simkulet 2016 , 2017 , 2019a , b , c , 2020 ; Bovens 2006 ; Schlumpf 2019 ) of disparate criticisms identifying apparent inconsistencies in how opponents of abortion (OA) treat fetuses. Unfortunately, this term is misleading, as practically all philosophical arguments involve identifying some form of inconsistency, confusion, or misunderstanding.

Critics of the prolife anti-abortion position argue that OA hold inconsistent moral beliefs; they claim to believe that fetuses are persons from conception, but they neglect the welfare of fetuses who are spontaneously aborted by natural causes, and overlook the well-being of the surplus frozen human embryos created for IVF. Perhaps the strangest argument that Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) label as an inconsistency argument comes from Sister Joan Chittister (Schlumpf 2019 ), who chastises those who call themselves “pro-life” for neglecting the welfare of born persons. Proponents of inconsistency arguments argue that OA hold inconsistent moral beliefs, arguing that upon revision, they will conclude that they either (i) need to do more, or (ii) need not oppose abortion.

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) contend that such arguments “do not matter.” This paper interprets this as the claim that inconsistency arguments are morally irrelevant for any (widely held) OA view. This paper will show that such arguments are morally relevant to the most widely held OA position.

Another way to read Colgrove et al. is as claiming they “do not matter” because they cannot show that OA need to adopt (ii) over (i). They say, “Inconsistency arguments simply are not equipped to undermine OAs’ views; at most, they reveal what OAs should do (or believe).” (Colgrove et al. 2020 ) This is uncharitable. First, while some inconsistency theorists (Ord 2008 ; Berg 2017 ) might believe that OA do not really believe fetuses are persons from conception, these arguments identify apparent inconsistency, but need not take a stance on how OA ought to resolve this inconsistency. Second, even if OA choose (i) and conclude they ought to do more to prevent spontaneous abortion (education, research, increased access to healthcare (Simkulet 2017 , 2020 ), and perhaps a major shift in social priorities (Ord 2008 ; Berg 2017 ), and more for surplus IVF embryos (adoption, and gestation (Lovering 2020 ; Blackshaw and Colgrove 2020 ; Blackshaw 2021 ), this matters . Colgrove et al. jest that if OA embrace option (i) it would “make the world a (much) worse place (from the critic’s perspective)”; but fail to note that it would make the world a much better place from the perspective of OA!

Complicating matters, there seems to be disagreement among Colgrove, Blackshaw, and Rodger regarding what opposition to abortion requires. Notably, Bruce Blackshaw ( 2021 , 166) contends that Christians ought to act as neighbors, and offers a robust, clear account of what this requires:

Treating frozen embryos as neighbors requires securing them a life like ours through adoption and gestation, and as well as opposing abortion, Christians must work toward this goal for the vast numbers of frozen embryos that would otherwise be discarded.

Blackshaw and Rodger ( 2019 ) attempt to justify OA disinterest in spontaneous abortion, claiming that most cases of spontaneous abortion are not currently preventable; but Blackshaw ( 2021 ) notes that “if we regard all human life as equally valuable, we have at least some obligation toward helping reduce deaths from spontaneous abortion where possible”.

This paper argues that inconsistency arguments matter. It is divided into three main sections. The first draws a distinction between restrictivist and moralist views on abortion, arguing only restrictivist views are OA. The second sets out to defend my earlier criticism (Simkulet 2021 ) of the other beliefs, other actions, and hypocrisy objections from Blackshaw et al.’s ( 2021 ) recent response. The third offers a new argument against the other actions objection; I argue that if this objection were to succeed, it would undermine restrictivist opposition to abortion.

Opposition to Abortion

On miscarriage.

Before his collaboration (Colgrove et al. 2020 ) with Blackshaw and Rodger, Colgrove ( 2019 ) raised a different criticism of Berg’s ( 2017 ) inconsistency argument. Berg argues that because miscarriage is so common, if we believe fetuses matter , we ought to devote more medical resources to protecting them. Colgrove replies that “miscarriage is not a cause of death,” but rather “it is an outcome.” Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) accuse me of the same error.

This is rather uncharitable, but it also misses two key points common in inconsistency arguments. First, if OA believe that fetuses matter, one would expect them to be concerned with both spontaneous and induced abortion, as both are tragic. Second, even if spontaneous abortion has many disparate causes, there may be a common solution. For example, Aspirin can treat a wide variety of conditions, from scraped knee to eye strain to migraine. Many proposals inconsistency theorists discuss (for example, education, gene therapy, and ectogenesis technology) would prevent spontaneous abortion by many different causes.  In short, even if miscarriage is not a single cause of death, there is good reason to think a single solution might address many different cases, saving many fetal lives.

On Opposition to Abortion

To play on Colgrove, note that opposition to abortion is not a moral theory, it is an action or stance one can take toward abortion. There are many reasons why one might oppose abortion; one might merely find the word “abortion” to be distasteful, might oppose abortion on teleological grounds, argue that it is outside the scope of medicine, or that it violates the Hippocratic Oath.

However, most opposition to abortion rests on a single belief. Judith Jarvis Thomson ( 1972 ) says, “Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.” Don Marquis ( 1989 ) says “Many of the most insightful and careful writers on the ethics of abortion… believe that whether or not abortion is morally permissible stands or falls on whether or not a fetus is the sort of being whose life it is seriously wrong to end.”

In short, most opposition to abortion turns on the belief that a fetus matters from conception (or soon afterwards (Marquis 2007 , 2013 ); that the fetus is morally comparable to an adult human person. This view is usually abbreviated as the view that fetuses are persons, broadly construed to mean one of many disparate theories about moral status; that human fetuses are human organisms (Mulder 2013 ), rational substances (Lee and George 2005 ; Beckwith 2007 ; George and Tollefsen 2008 ; Friberg-Fernros 2015 ), have a possible future it would be wrong to deprive them of Marquis 1989 ; Stone 1987 ), etc.

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) seek to show that inconsistency arguments are morally irrelevant for any (widely held) anti-abortion view, and there seems to be widespread consensus the most widely held anti-abortion view claims fetuses are persons, broadly construed, from conception (PAC). This paper defends the position that inconsistency arguments are morally relevant to the PAC view.

Restrictivism and Moralism

It will be practical to distinguish between two groups of anti-abortion positions — Restrictivism  (Davis 1984 ; Carroll and Crutchfield Forthcoming ), the view that we should adopt social policies that restrict a woman’s access to induced abortion, and Moralism , the view that abortion is merely immoral, but that we do not need adopt Restrictivist social policies.

It is not hard to see why PAC theorists might embrace restrictivism. On this view, fetuses are comparable to adult human persons, and society has adopted policies aimed at protecting the rights of adult human persons, so it is prima facie plausible that we should adopt similar social policies regarding fetuses. However, Thomson ( 1972 ) demonstrates that it is not enough to show that fetuses merely have a right to life by way of the violinist case:

Violinist: The Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and attaches your circulatory system to a famous, innocent, unconscious violinist suffering from a kidney ailment that will kill him unless he remains connected to your kidneys for nine months. (Adapted)

The violinist obviously has a right to life, but Thomson argues that the right to life does not give him the right to use your body; it is morally permissible for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist. Thomson says it would be a “great kindness” to stay attached to the violinist but that you do not have to accede to this.

Disconnecting the violinist from your body is comparable to disconnecting a patient from life support to let him die. Restrictivists might argue that induced abortion is not a matter of letting die; but of killing; but this will not do, as one can terminate a pregnancy without killing the fetus by severing the umbilical cord or removing the uterus, “merely” letting the fetus die. If this distinction mattered, restrictivists would not be anti-abortion, they would merely oppose how most abortions are currently performed.

Thomson shows it is not enough for restrictivists to believe fetuses are persons with a right to life, they must also believe something more , that (a) the fetus’s right to life is a positive right to assistance, or (b) the gestational mother somehow comes to have a special obligation to provide assistance to the fetus. She argues that this special obligation cannot be explained by merely risking the chance of pregnancy, as this would imply any woman who leaves the house without a hysterectomy has consented to pregnancy, even by rape. Furthermore, David Boonin ( 2002 ) argues that even if one consents to provide aid, one can withdraw consent.

Bone Marrow: Your neighbor is diagnosed with a condition that will kill him unless he receives monthly bone marrow transplants over the course of nine months from a match. You are a match and you agree to donate. However, it soon becomes clear that these surgeries ask more than you are willing to give, and you refuse to go in for the second surgery. (Adapted)

These thought experiments demonstrate that restrictivists must do more than argue fetuses are persons, they must argue that the fetus has a positive right to assistance.

However, one can believe abortion is immoral without believing we ought to adopt restrictivist social policies. There are many prima facie immoral things that it would be inappropriate to restrict by law. For example, I think most of us would agree that it is prima facie immoral to waste scarce resources, but that individuals might have a right to do so in some cases. One might hold that it is wrong to waste food without holding that throwing away leftovers should be illegal. Similarly, one might hold that adultery outside of an open marriage is immoral, but that adopting social policies that restrict such behavior would be undesirable, in part, because they are difficult to enforce, and in part because it might incentivize other immoral behavior, such as murdering one’s spouse to keep one’s adultery secret.

Moralism is the view that abortion is often, all things considered, immoral, but does not require that we adopt social policies that restrict woman’s access to abortion. There are many reasons why moralists might reject restrictivism independent of Thomson and Boonin-style concerns.

For example, restrictivist views have a hard time making exceptions for rape cases, despite the fact that many restrictivists believe such exceptions should be made. Rape victims are often reluctant to report rape and reluctant to take medical exams. Convictions in rape cases are difficult to obtain, especially within the short window in which inducing abortion would be medically preferable. As such, restrictivists face a dilemma – (a) if they require proof of rape, then few rape victims are allowed to abort; while (b) if they do not require proof of rape, they encourage women to merely say they were raped (whether true or not), failing to prevent most induced abortions and encouraging deception.

Restrictivists face a similar challenge with regards to self-defense, as all pregnancies are medically risky. The prospect of drawing a nonarbitrary line with regards to legally obligatory medical risk is dubious, but even if such a task could be achieved, those physicians sympathetic to abortion might overestimate risk and those opposing abortion might underestimate or ignore risk. Furthermore, medical risk of abortion increases with malnutrition and other medical emergencies, so those seeking abortion on medical grounds are incentivized to harm themselves to pass this threshold.

In light of these, and other, difficulties, many people who believe abortion are immoral reject restrictivism and adopt moralism. Notably, moralists need not hold that fetuses have a positive right to assistance, like restrictivists. I have contended (Simkulet 2021 ) that most OA believe fetuses have a positive right to assistance — that most OA are restrictivists. Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) claim that I miss “the target,” as one can be an OA without being committed to the belief that fetuses have a positive right to assistance.

Perhaps Colgrove et al. wish OA to pick out both restrictivist and moralist positions, but this will not do. Although moralists believe induced abortion is immoral, they are prochoice, while Colgrove et al. identify OA as prolife. Perhaps Colgrove et al. mean to say restrictivism does not require the belief that fetuses have a positive right to assistance, but this would merely introduce greater inconsistency regarding medical and legal ethics, as illustrated by Thomson ( 1972 ) and Boonin ( 2002 ).

Do Inconsistency Arguments Matter?

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) raise three objections to inconsistency arguments — the other beliefs, other actions, and hypocrisy objections. I contend (Simkulet 2021 ) these objections threaten to undermine moral analysis completely; opposing parties could always claim to have other beliefs, other actions, or interpret criticism as an ad hominem attack impinging their character.

This section is divided into four subsections. The first looks at two inconsistency arguments. The next three subsections briefly summarize Colgrove et al.’s objections, and my criticisms (Simkulet 2021 ) of these arguments.

Inconsistency Arguments

OA often point to high numbers of induced abortion as a call to action. Upwards of 60% (Boklage 1990 ; Léridon 1977 ) of human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, prompting critics to ask why OA do not see spontaneous abortion as a call to action. Toby Ord ( 2008 ) compares spontaneous abortion to a scourge that kills over half of humanity. Berg ( 2017 ) compares it to Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke. Faced with these overwhelming numbers, inconsistency theorists conclude that if fetuses matter, then the problem of spontaneous abortion calls for a massive shift in our social and political priorities. I have noted (Simkulet 2021 ) that we recently underwent such a shift to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

Henrik Friberg-Fernros ( 2015 , 2019 , 2018 ) challenges this position, contending that while fetal death is always tragic, not all fetal deaths are equally tragic; that killing is worse than letting die, and even that fetal lives are worth less than adult human lives because they lack time relative interests (Friberg-Fernros 2019 )! However, inconsistency arguments do not assume that all fetal deaths are equally tragic, merely that if fetuses matter, their deaths are tragic.

OA face a dilemma — either they (i) need to do more to prevent fetal death, or (ii) should withdraw opposition to induced abortion. Some proponents think OA should choose (ii) — that the argument demonstrates they do not really believe fetuses are persons. However, others propose a wide variety of methods by which OA might reasonably seek to confront the problem of fetal death, from increased education and better access to healthcare, to technologies like ectogenesis and gene therapy that those on both sides of the abortion debate could reasonably support (Simkulet 2020 ).

While many inconsistency arguments focus on unaddressed fetal loss, Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) also categorize Chittister's tweet (Schlumpf 2019 ) as an inconsistency argument. She asks whether it makes sense to call OA “pro-life” merely because they oppose abortion, noting all OA seem to be concerned with is ensuring the child is born, not fed, educated, or housed; asserting “That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth.”

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) contend that Chittister is using the term “pro-birth” pejoratively, but this is rather uncharitable. The term “pro-life” carries with it a positive emotive context, and when OA present their view as “pro-life,” they may mislead their audience about their position. In contrast, the term “pro-birth” seems to capture the one unifying feature of OA.

Even if Chittister is angry or disappointed that OA misrepresent their position, neglect their moral obligations, or the like… so what? That is how moral judgements work. If you think Φing is wrong, and you see someone Φing, it makes sense to be angry or disappointed. Colgrove et al. speak as though this, and accusations of pro-life hypocrisy are ad hominem attacks on OA; not so. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks person rather than their argument or view. Inconsistency arguments do not do this; they identify apparent inconsistency within the OA view, and call for change, as Chittister does when she concludes, “We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

Other Beliefs Objection and Response

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) raise three objections to inconsistency arguments. In the first, they contend that inconsistency arguments do not matter because there is a diversity of beliefs among OA, suggesting that no one inconsistency argument undermine them all; “This diversity makes broad accusations of inconsistency problematic.” Following this, one might argue that when an OA is confronted with apparent inconsistency within one view, they can jump ship to another OA view. But moral analysis is not a shell game. If inconsistency arguments identify a problem within even one OA position, they matter; and if they threaten the most widely held OA position, it seems they matter quite a bit.

Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) suggest that OA may have other beliefs which explain away apparent inconsistency and justify their inaction with regards to spontaneous abortion; for example they ask us to consider someone who both opposes induced abortion and opposes universal healthcare; noting these beliefs would justify rejecting the conclusion that we should adopt universal health care to help address the problem of induced and spontaneous abortion (and suffering and death due to lack of medical care, more broadly). To this, I reply (Simkulet 2021 ):

It is not enough to show that some [OA] have some beliefs that are prima facie at odds with some [inconsistency theorist] proposals; they must show that the current level of apparent indifference that many [OA] show is justified by their other beliefs; and it is not clear what set of other beliefs would be both internally consistent and justify the conclusion that while persons [matter], this right requires very little in the way of sacrifice from anyone but gestational mothers.

Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) contend that I argue “this [apparent] indifference must be justified by their other beliefs…” continuing “there is an obvious belief that justifies [OA]’s actions and priorities —… [OA] believe that induced abortion is a more important priority than these other issues.” However, this misses the point. As we have seen above, inconsistency theorists do not claim that OA need to treat the problem of spontaneous abortion as equally important to the problem of induced abortion, but rather they must consistently recognize both are tragic.

Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) continue “induced abortion is the leading preventable cause of death of human beings, as spontaneous abortions are largely unpreventable.” However, they seem to understand “preventable” in an opportunistically narrow way — as preventable with our current technology — to disregard the problem of spontaneous abortion. Amy Berg ( 2017 ) challenges this opportunistically narrow caveat:

But imagine throwing up our hands about a horrible disease… Imagine saying that we should let AIDS, or cancer, or heart disease take its course, rather than expending more effort researching how we might prevent that disease or treat people who contract it. That’s not what we do.

Berg ( 2017 ) notes that just because spontaneous abortion is medically intractable now does not mean it will be in the future, comparing to the AIDs epidemic, “In just a couple of decades, AIDS went from a mysterious underground disease, to a devastating and fatal epidemic, to a relatively manageable chronic condition.”

Perhaps more troublingly, Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) say, “If OAs sincerely believe these claims, then they are acting consistently with their beliefs, and the Other Beliefs Objection succeeds.” Above I have argued that even if one sees one form of abortion as a greater priority than another, this does not justify apparent indifference OAs show with regards to spontaneous abortion.

The real challenge here is “sincerity,” most people have inconsistent beliefs of one form or another and do not realize it; but it is possible that one can realize that they hold two sincere beliefs while also sincerely believing those beliefs to be inconsistent. Consider the problem of evil; one might sincerely believe that God exists, that evil exists, and that God would not allow evil to exist. This belief set is inconsistent, but does not necessarily yield conflicting implications for how we ought to live our lives.

But what if an OA sincerely believes the following?

• All human death is morally tragic.
• Not all human death is morally tragic.
• Propositions (a) and (b) are apparently a contradiction.

It is easy to imagine a Socratic dialogue in which Socrates helps an OA to express position (a) and proposition (b), prompting them to reconsider their position; what’s less easy to imagine is what would happen if an OA freely admits proposition (c), but refuses to reconsider. Moral agency requires some degree of reason-responsiveness, and at least with regards to the topic at hand, it is not clear such an OA would be able to function as a moral agent without rejecting one of these three propositions.

Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) end their reply as follows “If critics of [OA] want to change the subject – to examining whether the things [OA] believe are true or false, rather than fixating on [OA’s] alleged inconstancy — then [our] essay has succeeded.” Here, they again miss the point of inconsistency arguments, as these arguments do set out to examine whether the things [OA] believe are true or false; if the principle of non-contradiction is true, and OA hold contradictory beliefs, then at least one of their beliefs are false !

Why do they miss this point? I cannot be sure, but at times Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) and Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) talk as though inconsistency theorists are uniformly prochoice and hope to convince OA to abandon restrictivism; however, inconsistency arguments might just as easily lead one to believe they ought to do more to prevent spontaneous abortion, address surplus frozen human embryos, and the like. Some inconsistency theorists believe both would lead to less restrictivist opposition to abortion, but this is irrelevant.

What matters is that inconsistency arguments share the same form as the Socratic method, highlighting apparent inconsistency and prompting introspection. Perhaps Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) would also conclude that the Socratic method does not matter , but I hope not.

Other Actions Objection and Response

Colgrove et al.’s second criticism of inconsistency arguments is that they are too specific with their recommendations, suggesting OA can address problems raised by these arguments with different actions than those proposed by inconsistency theorists. For example, rather than adopt and gestate frozen human Embryos, as Lovering ( 2020 ) (and Blackshaw 2021 !) advocate, Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) suggest OA might fight “to change public perception of the status of embryos,” or lobby to change IVF laws.

There are three problems here. First, although inconsistency theorists propose a variety of recommendations, these recommendations are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather representative of the kinds of changes an OA would need to adopt to resolve their apparent inconsistency. Remember, inconsistency theorists argue that OA face a dilemma — either (i) do more, or (ii) abandon their opposition to abortion; to say that an OA can perform other actions to address the problem just is to embrace the first horn of the dilemma.

Second, I have pointed out (Simkulet 2021 ) that the other actions Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) propose are not necessarily mutually exclusive; one might both lobby to change IVF laws and adopt and gestate frozen human embryos. The fact that one lobbies to change IVF laws may reduce the number of surplus embryos created and frozen in the future; but it fails to address the needs of currently existing frozen human embryos, highlighting a third problem, that many of Colgrove et al.’s “other actions” are simply not enough. I illustrate (Simkulet 2021 ) this with a case inspired by James Rachels ( 1979 ):

Jack 2 finds himself in a room with a starving child, surplus sandwich in hand. He receives a call… The caller asks, “Will you donate your sandwich?” and he replies, “I’ll do you one better; I’m going to fight to change the public perception of the status of such starving children and raise awareness!” He proceeds to tweet about the starving child, sets up a donation page to help spread awareness, and posts pictures and videos of the child’s deteriorating state. Jack 2 , an expert in such things, narrates as the child slowly dies.

Jack 2 ’s claim to act to raise awareness pokes fun at Colgrove et al.’s ( 2020 ) proposal to protect frozen embryos by fighting to change public perception. Despite his tweeting, it is clear Jack 2 fails morally — he lets a child starve to death when he could have easily saved that child’s life.

Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) argue that this case is disanalogous to OA (in)action, arguing that OA “live in a world where there are many important issues clamoring for their attention,” and suggest the following case is more analogous:

Jack 100 finds himself in a room with 100 needy children and only enough resources to save 1 child, which he does.

There are three substantive problems with this response. First, the case of Jack 2 is not meant to be analogous to OA inaction (despite poking fun at it); it is meant to demonstrate that merely having other actions is not sufficient to show that inconsistency arguments fail.

Second, the case of Jack 100 begs the question by assuming Jack is saving as many people as possible. However, as Lovering ( 2020 ) and Blackshaw ( 2021 ) seem to show, this simply is not how OA act. Inconsistency theorists argue that OA neglect to address the problems of spontaneous abortion, surplus frozen embryos, and even starving born children. Rather than save all they can, inconsistency theorists contend that OA act like Jack 2 , they do something , but fail to do everything they can.

Third, inconsistency theorists contend that most OA legislation and philosophical literature neglect to discuss the problems of spontaneous abortion, surplus frozen embryos, or starving born children. As such, perhaps the following case would be more analogous:

Jack 300 finds himself in a room with 300 needy children, and he says, “I see 100 needy children, but woe is me I can only save 1,” and so he saves 1 child.

It seems Jack 300 is unreliable; he says he sees 100 needy children in the room, but there are 300 needy children in the room. If we cannot trust Jack 300 to get an accurate headcount, it seems unreasonable to take his word that he is doing all he can.

With the Jack 100 case Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) seem to abandon the other actions objection, instead arguing that OA, like Jack 100 , do the “most good” they can. In short, Blackshaw et al. seem to treat the other actions’ objection as a surrogate for an argument from effective altruism, the view that we should try to do the most good we can. Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) claim that there are many different beliefs about what it means to do the “most good”, and suggest that objectively measuring options might be difficult, as though to claim that it does not matter what other actions OA take as long as they are trying to do the “most good.”

But this will not do. Effective altruism asks us to use reason and empirical evidence to maximize the amount of good we do, and inconsistency arguments seem to show that OA fail to do just this. Like Jack 2 , OA seem to ignore the easily preventable deaths of some with an unearned confidence that their current course of action is sufficient. If OA strive for effective altruism, they should be at least open to the prospect of embracing the first horn of the inconsistency theorist’s dilemma — that maybe should do more. Suppose Jill 100 finds herself in the locked room with Jack 100 , and promises to show Jack 100 how he can save 3 needy children, rather than just 1, with the resources at hand; if Jack 100 seeks to be an effective altruist, should he not at least listen, time permitting?

Effective altruism requires that we guide our choices by reason and evidence; it is not enough to have a sincere belief that one is doing all that one can, the evidence has to back this up. If inconsistency theorists can show that OA are not doing all they can, then they have been succeeding in showing that OA fall short of effective altruism.

Of course, this is exactly what proponents of inconsistency theorists purport to show. Take the aforementioned inconsistency theorist Lovering ( 2020 ) who, like OA restrictivist Blackshaw ( 2021 ), argues that OA should do more than merely fight to change public perception or lobby to change IVF laws, in many cases they ought to also adopt and gestate actually existing frozen human embryos. Of course, not every OA can gestate frozen human embryos — without effective ectogenesis technology and universal healthcare this burden seems to fall on wealthy, female OA alone. However, few OA argue that adopting and gestating these embryos are obligatory for those with the means to do so, and this omission at least appears to be inconsistent with their assertion that all fetuses matter from conception, let alone the position that OA are acting as effective altruists.

Furthermore, Blackshaw ( 2021 ) does not merely side with Lovering regarding OA’s obligations regarding frozen human embryos; he says:

[I]f we regard all human life as equally valuable, we have at least some obligation toward helping reduce deaths from spontaneous abortion where possible. The parable of the Good Samaritan reinforces the notion that Christians do have some responsibility toward this neglected group of human beings, who are also our neighbors.

Here Blackshaw ( 2021 ) contends that these groups — frozen human embryos and those fetuses who die from spontaneous abortion — matter , and that at least some OA — those inconsistency arguments seek to criticize — neglect them. In short, Blackshaw’s ( 2021 ) view seems at odd with the view he expresses in Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) and Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ). This is not meant as a criticism of Blackshaw; philosophers revise their views over time, articles are often published long after their initial submission, and many articles are written for blind review which could disincentivize the author from discussing their previous works.

Note, however, that Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) and Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) set out to argue that inconsistency arguments do not matter for any OA view and in doing so they bite off far more than they can chew. It is easy to contend that all OA have other possible actions – contra Frankfurt ( 1969 ), many philosophers believe alternate possibilities are required for moral agency and responsibility; but it is quite a different matter to argue that all OA are acting as effective altruists, or even that all OA merely sincerely believe they are acting as effective altruists, especially when confronted with criticism from inconsistency theorists. Blackshaw ( 2021 ) contends inconsistency arguments demonstrate that some OA neglect this group, and this alone seems sufficient to show inconsistency arguments are morally significant.

Hypocrisy Objection and Response

In their third objection, Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) contend that inconsistency arguments aim to show that OA are hypocrites, rather than demonstrate inconsistency. I note (Simkulet 2021 ) that Colgrove et al. equivocate between hypocrisy and inconsistency, and that they characterize hypocrisy as a moral failing. Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) say:

[OA] are often described as ’inconsistent’ (hypocrites) in terms of their beliefs, actions and/or priorities…These objections notwithstanding, perhaps some OAs do act in ways that can be shown to be inconsistent with their beliefs. If so, then they are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is a serious charge regarding the character of OAs, but it has nothing to say regarding the validity and consistency of their beliefs—and OAs’ beliefs are surely what critics should primarily be targeting.

In short, it seems that Colgrove et al. mischaracterize inconsistency arguments as ad hominem fallacies; but as we have already seen there is a difference. Inconsistency arguments are simply not aimed at showing OA are hypocrites; only that they have inconsistent beliefs.

In their reply to my previous work (Simkulet 2021 ), Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) say something bizarre “Simkulet offers no empirical evidence regarding [OA’s] supposed lack of interest in relevant issues.” But inconsistency theorists do this ; Lovering ( 2020 ) goes to great lengths to discuss OA who do go out of their way to address these concerns and provides evidence such altruism is rare . Still, it is difficult to take this call for empirical evidence seriously, as neither Colgrove et al. ( 2020 ) nor Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) provide such evidence on behalf of OA.

Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) also challenge my claim (Simkulet 2021 ) that legislation seeking to reduce the creation of surplus IVF embryos would be relatively easy to pass:

Not so. Italy, for example, passed a law in 2004 prohibiting the freezing of embryos, and requiring that all embryos be implanted. (Riezzo et al. 2016 ) The law was swiftly condemned, eventually overturned and, in one case, actions prescribed by the law were declared by the UN to have constituted a ‘human rights violation.’ (Scaffidi 2019 ) Thus, relevant laws would likely face international resistance. So, a central problem Simkulet puts forth as having an ‘easy’ solution does not.

There are two big problems here. First, I propose (Simkulet 2021 ) passing legislation to limit the creation of surplus embryos, not to force all created embryos to be implanted. The difference is obvious, my restrictivist proposal would limit the number of embryos created at a time, so it might take multiple tries before a successful embryo is created.

In contrast, the Italian law seems to place no limits on how many embryos can be created, rather it sets out to force women to undergo invasive, risky medical procedures. IVF has a relatively low chance of success; but imagine more attempts at fertilization succeed than expected; this law would compel physicians to perform, and women to undergo, dangerous medical procedures against their wills. This is hauntingly similar to forcing you to donate bone marrow even at the cost of your life in Boonin’s ( 2002 ) bone marrow case. In short, the Italian law threatens to harm citizens and undermine professional ethics by requiring medically risky and unnecessary interventions without the patient’s consent.

In contrast, my proposal (Simkulet 2021 ) would merely require physicians limit the number of embryos created at one time; not entirely dissimilar from legal limits on how many drugs a physician can prescribe within a period of time. Furthermore, I do not say such legislation would be easy, only “relatively easy” compared to restrictivist legislation – legislation that has far more in common with the Italian law than Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) acknowledge. Both restrictivist legislation and the Italian law seek to undermine women’s rights to control their body and force them to risk their lives for the sake of others. Meanwhile limiting the number of embryos created does not limit one’s reproductive freedom, nor compel them to take on additional medical risk.

Both OA restrictivist legislation and the Italian law seek to limit women’s reproductive choices and force women to take on additional medical risk. Legislation of this kind faces strong opposition from those seeking to protect women’s liberty and reproductive freedom. This kind of legislation also faces strong opposition from biomedical ethicists and medical professionals, as it threatens to violate patient autonomy and the Hippocratic Oath by forcing patient and physician to perform risky medical procedures to benefit a third party, not unlike forcing you to remain attached to the violinist in Thomson’s infamous violinist case (Thomson 1972 ).

In contrast, it is not clear that my proposed legislation (Simkulet 2021 ) to limit the number of embryos that can be created at a single time, would face much opposition at all. Perhaps eugenicists would oppose such legislation for limiting a parent’s right to choose the “best” fetus from the widest possible net, but this does not seem like a widely held position. Perhaps bioethicists and medical professionals would oppose such legislation believing it cumbersome and impractical, but this seems like a much weaker ground for opposition than the autonomy and professional ethics violations epitomized by OA restrictivist legislation and the Italian law.

The Prochoice Other Beliefs Objection

I have argued (Simkulet 2021 ) that if the other beliefs, other actions, and hypocrisy objections are not successful in showing inconsistency arguments “do not matter,” they threaten to undermine the discipline of ethics. No person has merely one moral belief, so if a diversity of beliefs invalidates moral analysis, ethics is impossible. In all cases in which a person acts morally responsibly (save maybe some interpretations of Frankfurt-style cases (Frankfurt 1969 ), agents have other possible actions, so if merely having other actions was sufficient to disregard moral analysis, ethics fails. Finally, if interpreting moral analysis as an ad hominem attack of hypocrisy was sufficient to rebuff criticism, one can shut down all moral debate merely by being thin-skinned. Here, I have argued that Blackshaw et al. ( 2021 ) fail to defend these objections, and fail to show that inconsistency arguments do not matter.

However, these are lofty claims about the discipline of ethics; let’s consider something a bit more down to Earth. Consider the following case:

Jacqueline is surprised to find herself pregnant, calling into question her school’s sexual education program. While discussing the matter with her physician, she learns that some people believe embryos are persons from conception! She finds this view intuitive and compelling, and outraged by her school’s poor sexual education program, she endeavors to work tirelessly to change the public perception of the status of embryos. Later, her physician expresses concern about her exertion, recommending that she puts her efforts to educate on hiatus during the pregnancy, fearing the worst. Jacqueline faces a choice — (i) continue with her pregnancy for the next 6 months, losing ground on her fight to change public perception of embryos or (ii) induce abortion (perhaps by hysterectomy) and continue the fight. When speaking with her physician, Jacqueline quotes an influential piece of literature (Colgrove et al. 2020 ), “It may be unclear, however, which option is superior. Many considerations apply to each, and they may be highly individualistic.” She continues “Objectively evaluating options to determine the most appropriate action for a particular belief held by a specific individual seems a very difficult task.” Upon careful and thoughtful reflection, she chooses (ii), judging that it will do the most good. After all, her embryo is but one embryo and while it is tragic to disconnect it from her body and let it die, her tireless efforts might do more good overall.

If the other actions objection shields OA from inconstancy arguments, it seems that it equally shields Jaqueline from restrictivist OA arguments that seek to restrict her freedom. Therefore, it seems that Blackshaw et al. face a dilemma — (i) reject the position that merely having other actions, beliefs, etc. is sufficient to shield a position from criticism, or (ii) abandon their opposition to induced abortion. If (i), then inconsistency arguments matter. Then again, if (ii), then it seems as though no ethical arguments matter.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Beckwith, Francis J. 2007. Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Berg Amy. Abortion and miscarriage. Philosophical Studies. 2017; 174 (5):1217–1226. doi: 10.1007/s11098-016-0750-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackshaw, Bruce Philip. 2021. Is pregnancy really a Good Samaritan act? Christian Bioethics 7(2): 158–168. 10.1093/cb/cbab004.
• Blackshaw, Bruce Philip, and Daniel Rodger. 2019. The problem of spontaneous abortion: is the pro-life position morally monstrous? New Bioethics 25(2): 103–120. 10.1080/20502877.2019.1602376. [ PubMed ]
• Blackshaw Bruce Philip, Colgrove Nicholas. Frozen embryos and the obligation to adopt. Bioethics. 2020; 34 (8):857–861. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12733. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackshaw, Bruce Philip, Nicholas Colgrove, Daniel Rodger. 2021. Inconsistency arguments still do not matter. Journal of Medical Ethics . 10.1136/medethics-2021-107644. [ PubMed ]
• Boklage, C.E. 1990. Survival probability of human conceptions from fertilization to term. International Journal of Fertility 35(2): 75–94. [ PubMed ]
• Boonin, David. 2002. A defense of abortion . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610172.
• Bovens Luc. The rhythm method and embryonic death. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2006; 32 (6):355–356. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.013920. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll, Emily, and Parker Crutchfield. Forthcoming. The duty to protect, abortion, and organ donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics . [ PubMed ]
• Colgrove, Nicholas. 2019. Miscarriage is not a cause of death: a response to Berg’s “abortion and miscarriage”.  Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46(4): 394–413. 10.1093/jmp/jhab010. [ PubMed ]
• Colgrove, Nicholas, Bruce Philip Blackshaw, Daniel Rodger. 2020. Prolife hypocrisy: why inconsistency arguments do not matter. Journal of Medical Ethics . 10.1136/medethics-2020-106633. [ PubMed ]
• Davis, Nancy. 1984. Abortion and self-defense. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13(3): 175–207. [ PubMed ]
• Fleck, Leonard M. 1979. Abortion, deformed fetuses, and the Omega pill. Philosophical Studies 36(3): 271–283. 10.1007/BF00372631. [ PubMed ]
• Frankfurt, Harry G. 1969. Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66(23): 829–839. 10.2307/2023833.
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik. 2015. A critique of Rob Lovering’s criticism of the substance view. Bioethics 29(3): 211–216. 10.1111/bioe.12080. [ PubMed ]
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik. 2018. Within the limits of the defensible: A response to Simkulet’s argument against the pro-life view on the basis of spontaneous abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics 44(11): 743–745. 10.1136/medethics-2017-104688. [ PubMed ]
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik. 2019. Defending the two tragedies argument: A response to Simkulet. Journal of Medical Ethics 45(6): 417–418. 10.1136/medethics-2019-105489. [ PubMed ]
• George Robert P, Tollefsen Christopher. Embryo: A defense of human life. New York, NY: Doubleday; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. 2005. The Wrong of Abortion. In Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics , ed. Andrew I. Cohen, and Christopher Heath Wellman. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Léridon, Henri. 1977. Human fertility: The basic components . Translated by Judith F. Helzner. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.
• Lovering, Rob. 2013. The Substance View: A Critique. Bioethics 27(5): 263–270. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01954.x. [ PubMed ]
• Lovering, Rob. 2014. The Substance View: A Critique (Part 2). Bioethics 28(7): 378–386. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.02006.x. [ PubMed ]
• Lovering, Rob. 2017. The Substance View: A Critique (Part 3). Bioethics 31(4): 305–312. 10.1111/bioe.12330. [ PubMed ]
• Lovering Rob. A moral argument for frozen human embryo adoption. Bioethics. 2020; 34 (3):242–251. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12671. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquis, Don. 1989. Why abortion is immoral. Journal of Philosophy 86(4): 183–202. 10.2307/2026961. [ PubMed ]
• Marquis, Don. 2007. The moral-principle objection to human embryonic stem cell research. Metaphilosophy 38(2–3): 190–206. 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2007.00481.x.
• Marquis Don. An argument that abortion is wrong. In: Shafer-Landau Russ., editor. Ethical theory: an anthology. 2. Oxford: Blackwell; 2013. pp. 400–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mulder, Jack. 2013. A short argument against abortion rights. Think 12(34): 57–68. 10.1017/S1477175613000080.
• Murphy, Timothy F. 1985. The moral significance of spontaneous abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics 11(2): 79–83. 10.1136/jme.11.2.79. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Ord, Toby. 2008. The scourge: Moral implications of natural embryo loss. American Journal of Bioethics 8(7): 12–19. 10.1080/15265160802248146. [ PubMed ]
• Rachels, James. 1979. Killing and starving to death. Philosophy 54(208): 159–171. 10.1017/S0031819100048415. [ PubMed ]
• Riezzo, Irene, Margherita Neri, Stefania Bello, Cristoforo Pomara, and Emanuela Turillazzi. 2016. Italian law on medically assisted reproduction: Do women’s autonomy and health matter? BMC Women’s Health 16: 44. 10.1186/s12905-016-0324-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Scaffidi, Sarah. 2019. Forced pregnancy in Italy violated ‘woman’s human right to health’, UN experts rule. UN News , 27 March 2019. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035601 . Accessed 11 July 2021.
• Schlumpf, Heidi. 2019. Sr. Joan Chittister’s 2004 quote on ’pro-life’ versus ’pro-birth’ goes viral. National Catholic Reporter , 23 May 2019. https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/sr-joan-chittisters-2004-quote-pro-life-versus-pro-birth-goes-viral. Accessed 11 July 2021.
• Simkulet William. A critique of Henrik Friberg-Fernros’s defense of the substance view. Bioethics. 2016; 30 (9):767–773. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12289. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkulet, William. 2017. Cursed lamp: The problem of spontaneous abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics 43(11): 784–791. 10.1136/medethics-2016-104018. [ PubMed ]
• Simkulet William. Substance, rights, value, and abortion. Bioethics. 2019; 33 (9):1002–1011. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12616. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkulet William. The two tragedies argument. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2019; 45 (5):304–308. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105145. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkulet, William. 2019c. Two tragedies argument: Two mistakes. Journal of Medical Ethics 45(8): 562–564. 10.1136/medethics-2019-105587. [ PubMed ]
• Simkulet William. Abortion and ectogenesis: Moral compromise. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2020; 46 (2):93–98. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105676. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkulet, William. 2021. The inconsistency argument: why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics . 10.1136/medethics-2020-107207. [ PubMed ]
• Stone, Jim. 1987. Why potentiality matters. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17(4): 815–830. 10.1080/00455091.1987.10715920.
• Stone, Jim. 1994. Why potentiality still matters.  Canadian Journal of Philosophy  24(2): 281–293. 10.1080/00455091.1994.10717370.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1972. A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs  1(1): 47–66.

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Free Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you about to write a persuasive essay on abortion but wondering how to begin?

Writing an effective persuasive essay on the topic of abortion can be a difficult task for many students. 

It is important to understand both sides of the issue and form an argument based on facts and logical reasoning. This requires research and understanding, which takes time and effort.

In this blog, we will provide you with some easy steps to craft a persuasive essay about abortion that is compelling and convincing. Moreover, we have included some example essays and interesting facts to read and get inspired by. 

So let's start!

• 1. How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?
• 2. Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples
• 3. Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion
• 4. Abortion Persuasive Essay Topics
• 5. Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?

Abortion is a controversial topic, with people having differing points of view and opinions on the matter. There are those who oppose abortion, while some people endorse pro-choice arguments. 

It is also an emotionally charged subject, so you need to be extra careful when crafting your persuasive essay .

Before you start writing your persuasive essay, you need to understand the following steps.

Step 1: Choose Your Position

The first step to writing a persuasive essay on abortion is to decide your position. Do you support the practice or are you against it? You need to make sure that you have a clear opinion before you begin writing. 

Once you have decided, research and find evidence that supports your position. This will help strengthen your argument. 

Check out the video below to get more insights into this topic:

Step 2: Choose Your Audience

The next step is to decide who your audience will be. Will you write for pro-life or pro-choice individuals? Or both? 

Knowing who you are writing for will guide your writing and help you include the most relevant facts and information.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Step 3: Define Your Argument

Now that you have chosen your position and audience, it is time to craft your argument. 

Start by defining what you believe and why, making sure to use evidence to support your claims. You also need to consider the opposing arguments and come up with counter arguments. This helps make your essay more balanced and convincing.

Step 4: Format Your Essay

Once you have the argument ready, it is time to craft your persuasive essay. Follow a standard format for the essay, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. 

Make sure that each paragraph is organized and flows smoothly. Use clear and concise language, getting straight to the point.

Step 5: Proofread and Edit

The last step in writing your persuasive essay is to make sure that you proofread and edit it carefully. Look for spelling, grammar, punctuation, or factual errors and correct them. This will help make your essay more professional and convincing.

These are the steps you need to follow when writing a persuasive essay on abortion. It is a good idea to read some examples before you start so you can know how they should be written.

Continue reading to find helpful examples.

Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples

To help you get started, here are some example persuasive essays on abortion that may be useful for your own paper.

Short Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Persuasive Essay About No To Abortion

What Is Abortion? - Essay Example

Persuasive Speech on Abortion

Legal Abortion Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Persuasive Essay about legalizing abortion

You can also read m ore persuasive essay examples to imp rove your persuasive skills.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents both sides of an argument. These essays rely heavily on logic and evidence.

Here are some examples of argumentative essay with introduction, body and conclusion that you can use as a reference in writing your own argumentative essay. 

Abortion Persuasive Essay Introduction

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Conclusion

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Pdf

Argumentative Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Argumentative Essay About Abortion - Introduction

Abortion Persuasive Essay Topics

If you are looking for some topics to write your persuasive essay on abortion, here are some examples:

• Should abortion be legal in the United States?
• Is it ethical to perform abortions, considering its pros and cons?
• What should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions?
• Is there a connection between abortion and psychological trauma?
• What are the ethical implications of abortion on demand?
• How has the debate over abortion changed over time?
• Should there be legal restrictions on late-term abortions?
• Does gender play a role in how people view abortion rights?
• Is it possible to reduce poverty and unwanted pregnancies through better sex education?
• How is the anti-abortion point of view affected by religious beliefs and values? 

These are just some of the potential topics that you can use for your persuasive essay on abortion. Think carefully about the topic you want to write about and make sure it is something that interests you. 

Check out m ore persuasive essay topics that will help you explore other things that you can write about!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

Here are some facts about abortion that will help you formulate better arguments.

• According to the Guttmacher Institute , 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion.
• The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
• Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with less than a 0.5% risk of major complications.
• In the United States, 14 states have laws that restrict or ban most forms of abortion after 20 weeks gestation.
• Seven out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
• In places where abortion is illegal, more women die during childbirth and due to complications resulting from pregnancy.
• A majority of pregnant women who opt for abortions do so for financial and social reasons.
• According to estimates, 56 million abortions occur annually.

In conclusion, these are some of the examples, steps, and topics that you can use to write a persuasive essay. Make sure to do your research thoroughly and back up your arguments with evidence. This will make your essay more professional and convincing. 

Need the services of a professional essay writing service ? We've got your back!

MyPerfectWords.com is a persuasive essay writing service that provides help to students in the form of professionally written essays. Our persuasive essay writer can craft quality persuasive essays on any topic, including abortion. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What should i talk about in an essay about abortion.

When writing an essay about abortion, it is important to cover all the aspects of the subject. This includes discussing both sides of the argument, providing facts and evidence to support your claims, and exploring potential solutions.

What is a good argument for abortion?

A good argument for abortion could be that it is a woman’s choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It is also important to consider the potential risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Gail Collins

Abortion Is Remaking Our Political Landscape. Why Aren’t Guns?

By Gail Collins

Opinion Columnist

Why don’t we talk more about guns?

Not that the issue doesn’t come up. But think about the public debate on gun control versus the one we’re having on abortion rights. Perhaps the two biggest long-running social issues in American politics, and the gulf does seem huge.

A lot of politicians who were historically opposed to abortion have clearly gotten very nervous about public opinion, worrying that being anti-choice is costing them votes. Take Arizona’s Kari Lake, one of the Republican Party’s most famous crazy-person candidates, now running for a Senate nomination. In 2022 when she was trying to get elected governor, she was a big fan of her state’s ancient ban on virtually all abortions (“a great law”).

But like many, many ambitious pols, Lake noticed that the public — even much of the conservative public — didn’t like seeing politicians mess with a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body. When a state Supreme Court suddenly upheld that Arizona abortion ban, circa 1864, Lake said that the old law was indeed “out of line with where the people of this state are.” Then she tried to drown the debate with a mystery statement. (“I chose life, but I’m not every woman. I want to make sure that every woman who finds herself pregnant has more choices so that she can make that choice that I made.”)

Of course, if we’re talking about folks who are principle-free, there’s always Donald Trump. Our former president felt the pro-abortion-rights winds blowing when, after the Supreme Court majority he brags about creating declared abortion wasn’t a constitutional right, his party did worse than expected in the next House elections. Hoping to dump the problem on the governors, he embraced the theory that abortion was a state issue.

But when it comes to guns, Trump clearly hasn’t seen any need to search for a pseudo-middle ground. He recently attended an N.R.A. gathering in Pennsylvania, where he assured his audience that “every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.”

Now, the idea of making abortion a state issue only works if you’re just looking for a make-believe answer that might let you escape from discussing the subject. But we don’t have a visible gun consensus. Even mass school shooting tragedies like Sandy Hook and Uvalde didn’t bring the debate to a head. Many, many politicians are still trying to protect the right of Americans to own weapons while giving at least some verbal deference to the right of everybody else not to be shot.

Shootings qualify as “mass” when a minimum of four people — shooter excluded — are hit. At this writing there have been 119 mass shootings this year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. (Really kinda depressing to be living in a country that requires the services of a Gun Violence Archive.) But don’t hold me to that number — it goes up fast. Just the other day one child was killed and 10 people injured at a backyard party in Chicago and 12 people were shot outside a New Orleans nightclub, one fatally.

These terrible gun stories often happen while people are pursuing what’s supposed to be their normal life. Late last month, an Uber driver in Ohio was killed when she was dispatched to the home of an 81-year-old man who believed she was working for somebody who was trying to scam him.

The last thing we should be leaving to the individual states is gun regulation, given that it’s extremely easy — and common — for weapons to travel across state lines. And anyway, you don’t really want to rely on state legislatures when it comes to national life-or-death issues. Basically, you’d be gambling on the wisdom and prudence of people like Colorado State Representative Don Wilson, who recently had to apologize for leaving a loaded semiautomatic handgun in the State Capitol restroom.

Or the state senators in Tennessee, whose response to the terrible Nashville school shooting that left six people, including three children, dead was to pass a bill allowing teachers to carry concealed guns to work.

Is it possible for us to get to the same place on gun safety that we’re getting to on abortion — where the people who make the policy feel pressure to be sensible? Christian Heyne, an official at Brady, an organization against gun violence, thinks that when it comes to public attitudes, we’re getting there. “It’s really a new ballgame for us,” he said.

That’s in large part because of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed in 2022, which prevents misdemeanor offenders from purchasing guns for five years after their release from prison and enhances background checks for gun buyers under 21.

A landmark bill. Truly, that’s what they called it. Because we live in a country where when it comes to guns, basically sane can be totally impossible. One of the leaders behind the bill, Senator Chris Murphy, feels Congress tackled both the abortion and gun issues because history forced it to. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the abortion protection in Roe v. Wade triggered an effort to pass some new authorization. And guns went back on the agenda after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, took the lives of 19 students and two teachers.

Ordinary citizens, Murphy said, were drenched in “the feeling someone else controls their bodies and the fear that their child won’t come home from school.”

So, changes on both fronts. But totally irresponsible — sometimes totally criminal — people can still buy guns through online or gun-show setups and sell them to dealers who specialize in selling them to the exact people we don’t want to see walking around armed. Changes have been made, but the setup is still … scary. Women’s rights rule on the abortion front — or at least in states that want to restrict them, politicians are trying to disguise their intent. But the gun lobby still reigns on the shooting side of things. And Trump, for one, courts them with gusto.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Gail Collins is an Opinion columnist, is a former member of the editorial board and was the first woman to serve as the Times editorial page editor, from 2001 to 2007. @ GailCollins • Facebook