abortion pro life thesis statement

Four pro-life philosophers make the case against abortion

To put it mildly, the American Philosophical Association is not a bastion of pro-life sentiment. Hence, I was surprised to discover that the A.P.A. had organized a pro-life symposium, “New Pro-Life Bioethics,” at our annual conference this month in Philadelphia. Hosted by Jorge Garcia (Boston College), the panel featured the philosophers Celia Wolf-Devine (Stonehill College), Anthony McCarthy (Bios Centre in London) and Francis Beckwith (Baylor University), all of whom presented the case against abortion in terms of current political and academic values.

Recognizing the omnipresent call for a “welcoming” society, Ms. Wolf-Devine explored contemporary society’s emphasis on the virtue of inclusion and the vice of exclusion. The call for inclusion emphasizes the need to pay special attention to the more vulnerable members of society, who can easily be treated as non-persons in society’s commerce. She argued that our national practice of abortion, comparatively one of the most extreme in terms of legal permissiveness, contradicts the good of inclusion by condemning an entire category of human beings to death, often on the slightest of grounds. There is something contradictory in a society that claims to be welcoming and protective of the vulnerable but that shows a callous indifference to the fate of human beings before the moment of birth.

There is something contradictory in a society that claims to be protective of the vulnerable but shows a callous indifference to the fate of human beings before the moment of birth.

Mr. McCarthy’s paper tackled the question of abortion from the perspective of equality. A common egalitarian argument in favor of abortion and the funding thereof goes something like this: If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and is denied access to abortion, she might be required to sacrifice educational and work opportunities. Since men do not become pregnant, they face no such obstacles to pursuing their professional goals. Restrictions to abortion access thus places women in a position of inequality with men.

Mr. McCarthy counter-argued that, in fact, the practice of abortion creates a certain inequality between men and women since it does not respect the experiences, such as pregnancy, which are unique to women. Some proponents of abortion deride pregnancy as a malign condition. A disgruntled audience member referred to pregnant women as “incubators.” Mr. McCarthy argued that authentic gender equality involves respect for what makes women different, including support for the well-being of both women and children through pregnancy, childbirth and beyond. He pointed out that in his native England, pregnant women acting as surrogates are given a certain amount of time after birth to decide whether to keep the child they bore and not fulfill the conditions of the surrogacy contract. This is done out of acknowledgment of the gender-specific biological and emotional changes undergone by a woman who has nurtured a child in the womb.

The most compelling argument against abortion remains what it has been for decades: Directly killing innocent human beings is gravely unjust.

Mr. Beckwith explored the question of abortion in light of the longstanding philosophical dispute concerning the “criteria of personhood.” The question of which human beings count as persons is closely yoked to the political question of which human beings will receive civil protection and which can be killed without legal penalty. The personhood criteria range from the most inclusive (genetic identity as a member of the species Homo sapiens ) to the more restrictive (evidence of consciousness) to the most exclusionary (evidence of rationality and self-motivating behavior).

Mr. Beckwith has long used the argument from personal identity (the continuity between my mature, conscious self and my embryonic, fetal and childhood self and my future older, possibly demented self) to make the case against abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. To draw the line between personhood and non-personhood after conception or before natural death is to make an arbitrary distinction—and a lethal one at that. Mr. Beckwith noted, however, that none of the usual candidates for a criterion of personhood is completely satisfying. Even the common pro-life argument from species membership could, unamended, smack of a certain materialism.

The most compelling argument against abortion remains what it has been for decades: Directly killing innocent human beings is gravely unjust. Abortion is the direct killing of innocent human beings. But political debate rarely proceeds by such crystalline syllogisms. The aim of the A.P.A.’s pro-life symposium was to amplify the argument by showing how our practice of abortion brutally violates the values of inclusion, equality and personhood that contemporary society claims to cherish. In the very month we grimly commemorate Roe v. Wade, such new philosophical directions are welcome winter light.

John J. Conley, S.J., is a Jesuit of the Maryland Province and a regular columnist for America . He is the current Francis J. Knott Chair of Philosophy and Theology at Loyola University, Maryland.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

• Clerc Center | PK-12 & Outreach
• KDES | PK-8th Grade School (D.C. Metro Area)
• MSSD | 9th-12th Grade School (Nationwide)
• Gallaudet University Regional Centers
• Parent Advocacy App
• K-12 ASL Content Standards
• National Resources
• Youth Programs
• Academic Bowl
• Battle Of The Books
• National Literary Competition
• Youth Debate Bowl
• Youth Esports Series
• Bison Sports Camp
• Discover College and Careers (DC²)
• Financial Wizards
• Immerse Into ASL
• Alumni Relations
• Alumni Association
• Homecoming Weekend
• Class Giving
• Get Tickets / BisonPass
• Sport Calendars
• Cross Country
• Swimming & Diving
• Track & Field
• Indoor Track & Field
• Cheerleading
• Winter Cheerleading
• Human Resources
• Plan a Visit
• Request Info

• Areas of Study
• Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• American Sign Language
• Art and Media Design
• Communication Studies
• Data Science
• Deaf Studies
• Early Intervention Studies Graduate Programs
• Educational Neuroscience
• Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Information Technology
• International Development
• Interpretation and Translation
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Philosophy and Religion
• Physical Education & Recreation
• Public Affairs
• Public Health
• Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Theatre and Dance
• World Languages and Cultures
• B.A. in American Sign Language
• B.A. in Art and Media Design
• B.A. in Biology
• B.A. in Communication Studies
• B.A. in Communication Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Deaf Studies
• B.A. in Deaf Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Early Childhood Education
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Elementary Education
• B.A. in English
• B.A. in Government
• B.A. in Government with a Specialization in Law
• B.A. in History
• B.A. in Interdisciplinary Spanish
• B.A. in International Studies
• B.A. in Interpretation
• B.A. in Mathematics
• B.A. in Philosophy
• B.A. in Psychology
• B.A. in Psychology for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Social Work (BSW)
• B.A. in Sociology
• B.A. in Sociology with a concentration in Criminology
• B.A. in Theatre Arts: Production/Performance
• B.A. or B.S. in Education with a Specialization in Secondary Education: Science, English, Mathematics or Social Studies
• B.S in Risk Management and Insurance
• B.S. in Accounting
• B.S. in Accounting for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Biology
• B.S. in Business Administration
• B.S. in Business Administration for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Information Technology
• B.S. in Mathematics
• B.S. in Physical Education and Recreation
• B.S. In Public Health
• General Education
• Honors Program
• Peace Corps Prep program
• Self-Directed Major
• M.A. in Counseling: Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• M.A. in Counseling: School Counseling
• M.A. in Deaf Education
• M.A. in Deaf Education Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Cultural Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights
• M.A. in Early Childhood Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Early Intervention Studies
• M.A. in Elementary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in International Development
• M.A. in Interpretation: Combined Interpreting Practice and Research
• M.A. in Interpretation: Interpreting Research
• M.A. in Linguistics
• M.A. in Secondary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Sign Language Education
• M.S. in Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology
• Master of Public Administration
• Master of Social Work (MSW)
• Au.D. in Audiology
• Ed.D. in Transformational Leadership and Administration in Deaf Education
• Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology
• Ph.D. in Critical Studies in the Education of Deaf Learners
• Ph.D. in Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Ph.D. in Linguistics
• Ph.D. in Translation and Interpreting Studies
• Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience (PEN)
• Individual Courses and Training
• Fall Online Courses
• Summer Online Courses
• National Caregiver Certification Course
• Certificates
• Certificate in Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Educating Deaf Students with Disabilities (online, post-bachelor’s)
• American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5 (online, post-bachelor’s)
• Early Intervention Studies
• Certificate in American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5
• Online Degree Programs
• ODCP Minor in Communication Studies
• ODCP Minor in Deaf Studies
• ODCP Minor in Psychology
• ODCP Minor in Writing
• Online Degree Program General Education Curriculum
• University Capstone Honors for Online Degree Completion Program

Quick Links

• PK-12 & Outreach
• NSO Schedule

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

202.448-7036

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

By Rory H. Osbrink

Abortion is an example of a very controversial issue. The two opposing viewpoints surrounding abortion are like two sides of a coin. On one side, there is the pro-choice activist and on the other is the pro-life activist.

The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the “”Argument versus Argument,”” or, “”Block-by-Block”” format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments surrounding one side of the issue, then you present all the arguments surrounding the other side of the issue. You are generally not expected to reach a conclusion, but simply to present the opposing sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined) Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Block-by-Block Format

One of the most divisive issues in America is the controversy surrounding abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in America, and many people believe that it should remain legal. These people, pro-choice activists, believe that it is the women’s right to chose whether or not to give birth. However, there are many groups who are lobbying Congress to pass laws that would make abortion illegal. These people are called the pro-life activists.

Explains pro-choice

Abortion is a choice that should be decided by each individual, argues the pro-choice activist. Abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet fully human, therefore, it is not in defiance against God. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, it should be the woman’s choice because it is her body. While adoption is an option some women chose, many women do not want to suffer the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and labor only to give up a child. Therefore, laws should remain in effect that protect a woman’s right to chose.

Explains pro-life

Abortion is an abomination, argues the pro-life activist. It makes no sense for a woman to murder a human being not even born. The bible says, “”Thou shalt not kill,”” and it does not discriminate between different stages of life. A fetus is the beginning of life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is in direct defiance of God’s will. Regardless of the mother’s life situation (many women who abort are poor, young, or drug users), the value of a human life cannot be measured. Therefore, laws should be passed to outlaw abortion. After all, there are plenty of couples who are willing to adopt an unwanted child.

If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments. Though it is a very personal decision, t he fate of abortion rights will have to be left for the Supreme Court to decide.

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

This second example is also an essay about abortion. We have used the same information and line of reasoning in this essay, however, this one will be presented in the “”Point-by-Point”” style argument. The Point-by-Point style argument presents both sides of the argument at the same time. First, you would present one point on a specific topic, then you would follow that up with the opposing point on the same topic. Again, you are generally not expected to draw any conclusions, simply to fairly present both sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined)

Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Point-by-Point Format

Point One: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God’s will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.

Point Two: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Another main point of the argument is over the woman’s personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman’s body, therefore it should be the woman’s decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.

Tutorial & Instructional Programs

Gallaudet University

202-448-7036

At a Glance

• Quick Facts
• University Leadership
• History & Traditions
• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Our 10-Year Vision: The Gallaudet Promise
• Annual Report of Achievements (ARA)
• The Signing Ecosystem
• Not Your Average University

Our Community

• Library & Archives
• Technology Support
• Interpreting Requests
• Ombuds Support
• Health and Wellness Programs
• Profile & Web Edits

Visit Gallaudet

• Explore Our Campus
• Virtual Tour
• Maps & Directions
• Shuttle Bus Schedule
• Kellogg Conference Hotel
• Welcome Center
• National Deaf Life Museum
• Apple Guide Maps

Engage Today

• Work at Gallaudet / Clerc Center
• Social Media Channels
• University Wide Events
• Sponsorship Requests
• Data Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Gallaudet Today Magazine
• Giving at Gallaudet
• Financial Aid
• Registrar’s Office
• Residence Life & Housing
• Safety & Security
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• University Communications
• Clerc Center

Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Copyright © 2024 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.

• Accessibility
• Cookie Consent Notice
• Privacy Policy
• File a Report

800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002

There’s a Better Way to Debate Abortion

Caution and epistemic humility can guide our approach.

If Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization becomes law, we will enter a post– Roe v. Wade world in which the laws governing abortion will be legislatively decided in 50 states.

In the short term, at least, the abortion debate will become even more inflamed than it has been. Overturning Roe , after all, would be a profound change not just in the law but in many people’s lives, shattering the assumption of millions of Americans that they have a constitutional right to an abortion.

This doesn’t mean Roe was correct. For the reasons Alito lays out, I believe that Roe was a terribly misguided decision, and that a wiser course would have been for the issue of abortion to have been given a democratic outlet, allowing even the losers “the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight,” in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Instead, for nearly half a century, Roe has been the law of the land. But even those who would welcome its undoing should acknowledge that its reversal could convulse the nation.

From the December 2019 issue: The dishonesty of the abortion debate

If we are going to debate abortion in every state, given how fractured and angry America is today, we need caution and epistemic humility to guide our approach.

We can start by acknowledging the inescapable ambiguities in this staggeringly complicated moral question. No matter one’s position on abortion, each of us should recognize that those who hold views different from our own have some valid points, and that the positions we embrace raise complicated issues. That realization alone should lead us to engage in this debate with a little more tolerance and a bit less certitude.

Many of those on the pro-life side exhibit a gap between the rhetoric they employ and the conclusions they actually seem to draw. In the 1990s, I had an exchange, via fax, with a pro-life thinker. During our dialogue, I pressed him on what he believed, morally speaking , should be the legal penalty for a woman who has an abortion and a doctor who performs one.

My point was a simple one: If he believed, as he claimed, that an abortion even moments after conception is the killing of an innocent child—that the fetus, from the instant of conception, is a human being deserving of all the moral and political rights granted to your neighbor next door—then the act ought to be treated, if not as murder, at least as manslaughter. Surely, given what my interlocutor considered to be the gravity of the offense, fining the doctor and taking no action against the mother would be morally incongruent. He was understandably uncomfortable with this line of questioning, unwilling to go to the places his premises led. When it comes to abortion, few people are.

Humane pro-life advocates respond that while an abortion is the taking of a human life, the woman having the abortion has been misled by our degraded culture into denying the humanity of the child. She is a victim of misinformation; she can’t be held accountable for what she doesn’t know. I’m not unsympathetic to this argument, but I think it ultimately falls short. In other contexts, insisting that people who committed atrocities because they truly believed the people against whom they were committing atrocities were less than human should be let off the hook doesn’t carry the day. I’m struggling to understand why it would in this context.

There are other complicating matters. For example, about half of all fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously —that is, result in miscarriage—usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Focus on the Family, an influential Christian ministry, is emphatic : “Human life begins at fertilization.” Does this mean that when a fertilized egg is spontaneously aborted, it is comparable—biologically, morally, ethically, or in any other way—to when a 2-year-old child dies? If not, why not? There’s also the matter of those who are pro-life and contend that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being but allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. That is an understandable impulse but I don’t think it’s a logically sustainable one.

The pro-choice side, for its part, seldom focuses on late-term abortions. Let’s grant that late-term abortions are very rare. But the question remains: Is there any point during gestation when pro-choice advocates would say “slow down” or “stop”—and if so, on what grounds? Or do they believe, in principle, that aborting a child up to the point of delivery is a defensible and justifiable act; that an abortion procedure is, ethically speaking, the same as removing an appendix? If not, are those who are pro-choice willing to say, as do most Americans, that the procedure gets more ethically problematic the further along in a pregnancy?

Read: When a right becomes a privilege

Plenty of people who consider themselves pro-choice have over the years put on their refrigerator door sonograms of the baby they are expecting. That tells us something. So does biology. The human embryo is a human organism, with the genetic makeup of a human being. “The argument, in which thoughtful people differ, is about the moral significance and hence the proper legal status of life in its early stages,” as the columnist George Will put it.

These are not “gotcha questions”; they are ones I have struggled with for as long as I’ve thought through where I stand on abortion, and I’ve tried to remain open to corrections in my thinking. I’m not comfortable with those who are unwilling to grant any concessions to the other side or acknowledge difficulties inherent in their own position. But I’m not comfortable with my own position, either—thinking about abortion taking place on a continuum, and troubled by abortions, particularly later in pregnancy, as the child develops.

The question I can’t answer is where the moral inflection point is, when the fetus starts to have claims of its own, including the right to life. Does it depend on fetal development? If so, what aspect of fetal development? Brain waves? Feeling pain? Dreaming? The development of the spine? Viability outside the womb? Something else? Any line I might draw seems to me entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Because of that, I consider myself pro-life, but with caveats. My inability to identify a clear demarcation point—when a fetus becomes a person—argues for erring on the side of protecting the unborn. But it’s a prudential judgment, hardly a certain one.

At the same time, even if one believes that the moral needle ought to lean in the direction of protecting the unborn from abortion, that doesn’t mean one should be indifferent to the enormous burden on the woman who is carrying the child and seeks an abortion, including women who discover that their unborn child has severe birth defects. Nor does it mean that all of us who are disturbed by abortion believe it is the equivalent of killing a child after birth. In this respect, my view is similar to that of some Jewish authorities , who hold that until delivery, a fetus is considered a part of the mother’s body, although it does possess certain characteristics of a person and has value. But an early-term abortion is not equivalent to killing a young child. (Many of those who hold this position base their views in part on Exodus 21, in which a miscarriage that results from men fighting and pushing a pregnant woman is punished by a fine, but the person responsible for the miscarriage is not tried for murder.)

“There is not the slightest recognition on either side that abortion might be at the limits of our empirical and moral knowledge,” the columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote in 1985. “The problem starts with an awesome mystery: the transformation of two soulless cells into a living human being. That leads to an insoluble empirical question: How and exactly when does that occur? On that, in turn, hangs the moral issue: What are the claims of the entity undergoing that transformation?”

That strikes me as right; with abortion, we’re dealing with an awesome mystery and insoluble empirical questions. Which means that rather than hurling invective at one another and caricaturing those with whom we disagree, we should try to understand their views, acknowledge our limitations, and even show a touch of grace and empathy. In this nation, riven and pulsating with hate, that’s not the direction the debate is most likely to take. But that doesn’t excuse us from trying.

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:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

• Religion & Abortion

Carrie Blazina is a former digital producer at Pew Research Center .

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

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

• 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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Abortion Research Paper: Example, Outline, & Topics

The long-standing debate surrounding abortion has many opponents and advocates. Groups known as Pro-Choice and Pro-Life argue which approach is better, with no easy solution in sight. This ethical complexity is what makes abortion a popular topic for argumentative writing. As a student, you need to tackle it appropriately.

If this task sounds daunting, read this guide by our custom-writing experts to get excellent writing tips on handling this assignment. You will also find here:

• abortion topics and prompts,
• a research paper outline,
• a free essay sample.
• 🤔 Why Is Abortion a Good Topic?
• ☑️ Research Paper Prompts
• 👨‍⚕️ Abortion Research Questions
• 📚 Research Topics
• 🔬 Before You Start
• ✍️ Step-by-Step Writing Guide

📋 Abortion Research Paper Example

🔍 references, 🤔 why is abortion a good research topic.

Abortion studies are a vast area of research and analysis. It touches upon numerous domains of life, such as politics, medicine, religion, ethics, and human rights perspectives.

Like gun control or euthanasia, the abortion debate offers no evident answers to what kind of regulation is preferable. According to a recent survey, 61% of US adults are in favor of abortion , while 37% think it should be illegal. The arguments from both sides make sense, and there is no “yes-no” solution.

All this makes investigating the abortion debate a valuable exercise to hone your critical analysis skills. It will teach you to back up your claims with sound evidence while giving credit to counterarguments. Besides, expanding the body of abortion research is beneficial for the American community and women’s rights.

☑️ Abortion Research Paper Prompts

The first step to writing a successful paper is choosing an appropriate topic. Abortion is surrounded by numerous legal, medical, ethical, and social debates. That’s why the choice of ideas is virtually endless.

Don’t know where to start? Check out the prompts and creative titles below.

Should Abortion Be Legal: Research Paper Prompt 

You can approach this question from several perspectives. For example, propose a new legal framework for regulating eligibility for abortion. Some states allow the procedure under certain circumstances, such as a threat to a woman’s health. Should it be made legal in less extreme situations, too?

Anti-Abortion Research Paper Prompt

The legal status of abortions is still disputed in many countries. The procedure’s most ardent opponents are Catholic religious groups. In an anti-abortion paper, you may list ethical or faith-based claims. Focus on the right-to-life arguments and give scientific evidence regarding embryo’s rights.

Abortion and Embryonic Stem Cell Research Prompt   

Stem cell research is a dubious issue that faces strong opposition from ethical and religious activists. Here are some great ideas for an essay on this topic:

• Start by explaining what stem cells are.
• Outline the arguments for and against their use in research.
• Link this discussion to the status of abortion.

Abortion Law Research Paper Prompt

If you get an abortion-related assignment in your Legal Studies class, it’s better to take a legislative approach to this issue. Here’s what you can do:

• Study the evolution of abortion laws in the US or other countries.
• Pinpoint legal gaps.
• Focus on the laws’ strengths and weaknesses.

Abortion Breast Cancer Research Prompt

Increasing research evidence shows the link between abortion and breast cancer development . Find scholarly articles proving or refuting this idea and formulate a strong argument on this subject. Argue it with credible external evidence.

Abortion Ethics Research Paper Prompt 

Here, you can focus on the significance of the discussion’s ethical dimension. People who are against abortion often cite the ethics of killing an embryo. You can discuss this issue by quoting famous thinkers and the latest medical research. Be sure to support your argument with sound evidence.

👨‍⚕️ Questions about Abortion for Research Paper

• How does technology reframe the abortion debate?
• Is there new ethics of abortion in the 21 st century?
• How did the abortion debate progress before the Roe v. Wade decision?  
• How is the abortion debate currently being shaped on social media? 
• How do abortion rights advocates conceptualize the meaning of life?  
• Can the abortion debate be called a culture war?
• What are women’s constitutional abortion rights?
• How does abortion reshape the concept of a person?
• How does the abortion debate fit in the post-Socialist transition framework of the European community?  
• Where does the abortion debate stand in the politics of sexuality?  

📚 Abortion Topics for Research Paper

• The changing legal rhetoric of abortion in the US.
• Constructing abortion as a legal problem.
• Regendering of the US’ abortion problem.
• Evolution of public attitudes to abortion in the US.
• Choice vs. coercion in the abortion debate.
• Abortion and sin in Catholicism.
• Artificial wombs as an innovative solution to the abortion debate.
• Religious belief vs. reason in the abortion debate.
• Introduction of pregnant women’s perspectives into the abortion debate: dealing with fetal abnormalities.
• The role of ultrasound images in the evolution of women’s abortion intentions.

🔬 Research Papers on Abortions: Before You Start

Before discussing how to write an abortion paper, let’s focus on the pre-writing steps necessary for a stellar work. Here are the main points to consider.

Abortion Research Design 

Before you start exploring your topic, you need to choose between a qualitative and quantitative research design:

💬 Qualitative studies focus on words and present the attitudes and subjective meanings assigned to the concept of abortion by respondents.

🧪 Quantitative studies , in turn, focus on numbers and statistics. They analyze objective evidence and avoid subjective interpretations.  

Pick a research design based on your research skills and the data you’re planning to analyze:

• If you plan to gain insight into people’s opinions, attitudes, and life experiences related to abortion, it’s better to go for an interview and qualitative analysis.
• If you have a survey and want to focus on descriptive statistics, it’s better to stick to quantitative methods .

Abortion Research Paper Outline Format

Next, it’s time to choose the format of your paper’s outline. As a rule, students use one of the 3 approaches:

You can learn more about these formats from our article on how to write an outline .

Choosing Headings & Subheadings

A strong title can save your paper, while a poor one can immediately kill the readers’ interest. That’s why we recommend you not to underestimate the importance of formulating an attention-grabbing, exciting heading for your text.

Here are our best tips to make your title and subheadings effective:

• A good title needs to be brief. It’s up to 5 words, as a rule. Subheadings can be longer, as they give a more extended explanation of the content.
• Don’t be redundant. Make sure the subheadings are not duplicating each other.
• Mind the format. For instance, if your paper is in the APA format, you need to use proper font size and indentation. No numbering of headings and subheadings is necessary as in the outline. Ensure the reader understands the hierarchy with the help of heading level distinctions.

Components of an Effective Outline

According to academic writing conventions, a good outline should follow 4 essential principles:

• Parallelism . All components of your outline need to have a similar grammatical structure. For example, if you choose infinitives to denote actions, stick to them and don’t mix them with nouns and gerunds.
• Coordination . Divide your work into chunks with equal importance. This way, you will allocate as much weight to one point as to all the others. Your outline’s sections of similar hierarchy should have equal significance.
• Subordination . The subheadings contained within one heading of a higher order should all be connected to the paper’s title.
• Division . The minimum number of subheadings in each outline heading should be 2. If you have only one point under a heading, it’s worth adding another one.

Use this list of principles as a cheat sheet while creating your outline, and you’re sure to end up with well-organized and structured research!

Abortion Research Paper Outline Example

To recap and illustrate everything we’ve just discussed, let’s have a look at this sample abortion outline. We’ve made it in the decimal format following all effective outlining principles—check it out!

• History of abortion laws in the USA.
• Problem: recent legal changes challenge Roe vs. Wade .
• Thesis statement: the right to abortion should be preserved as a constitutional right
• The fundamental human right to decide what to do with their body.
• Legal abortions are safer.
• Fetuses don’t feel pain at the early stages of development.
• Abortion is murder.
• Fetuses are unborn people who feel pain at later stages.
• Abortion causes lifelong psychological trauma for the woman.
• Roe vs. Wade is a pro-choice case.
• The constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity.
• Conclusion.

✍️ Abortion Research Paper: How to Write

Now, let’s proceed to write the paper itself. We will cover all the steps, starting with introduction writing rules and ending with the body and conclusion essentials.

Abortion Introduction: Research Paper Tips  

When you begin writing an abortion paper, it’s vital to introduce the reader to the debate and key terminology. Start by describing a broader issue and steadily narrow the argument to the scope of your paper. The intro typically contains the key figures or facts that would show your topic’s significance.

For example, suppose you plan to discuss the ethical side of abortion. In this case, it’s better to structure the paper like this:

• Start by outlining the issue of abortion as a whole.
• Introduce the arguments of pro-choice advocates, saying that this side of the debate focuses on the woman’s right to remove the fetus from her body or leave it.
• Cite the latest research evidence about fetuses as living organisms, proceeding to debate abortion ethics.
• End your introduction with a concise thesis statement .

Thesis on Abortion for a Research Paper

The final part of your introduction is a thesis—a single claim that formulates your paper’s main idea. Experienced readers and college professors often focus on the thesis statement’s quality to decide whether the text is worth reading further. So, make sure you dedicate enough effort to formulate the abortion research paper thesis well!

Don’t know how to do it? These pro tips will surely help you write a great thesis:

Abortion Research Paper Body

Now, it’s time to proceed to the main body of your paper. It should expand on the main idea in more detail, explaining the details and weighing the evidence for and against your argument.

The secret of effective writing is to go paragraph by paragraph . Your essay’s body will have around 2-5 of them, and the quality of each one determines the value of the whole text.

Here are the 4 easy steps that can help you excel in writing the main part of your essay:

• Start each paragraph with a topic sentence. It functions as a mini-thesis statement and communicates the paragraph’s main idea.
• Then, expand it with additional facts and evidence. It’s better to back that information with external sources, showing that it’s not your guesswork. Make sure you properly analyze the citations and show how they fit into your broader research.
• A paragraph should end with a concise wrap-up. Write a concluding sentence restating the topic sentence or a transition linking to the next section.

Research Papers on Abortions: Conclusion

The conclusion of an abortion paper also plays a major role in the overall impression that your paper will produce. So, how do you make it interesting?

Instead of simply restating the thesis and enumerating your points, it’s better to do the following:

• Focus on the broader implications of the issue you’ve just discussed.
• Mention your study’s limitations and point out some directions for further research.
• It’s also a good idea to include a call to action , which can help create a sense of urgency in the readers.

Abortion Articles for Research Paper & Other Sources

Every research paper ends with “works cited” or a reference page enumerating the sources used for the assignment. A rule of thumb is to cite credible, authoritative publications from governmental organizations and NGOs and academic articles from peer-reviewed journals. These sources will make your research more competent and professional, supporting your viewpoint with objective scientific information.

Here are some databases that can supply top-quality data to back the abortion-related claims in a research paper:

Feel free to check these databases for studies related to your subject. It’s best to conduct preliminary research to see whether your topic has enough supporting evidence. Also, make sure there are plenty of new studies to back your arguments! Abortion is a fast-changing field of research, so it’s best only to use publications no more than 5 years old.

To learn more about credible research sources, check out our guide on choosing reliable websites .

We’ve taught you all you need to write a well-researched and thoughtful abortion paper. Finally, we want to give you an example of an essay on the topic “ Should Abortion Rights Be Preserved? ” Check it out to gain inspiration.

Now you know all the details of abortion paper writing. Use our tips to choose a topic, develop sound arguments, and impress your professor with a stellar piece on this debatable subject!

❓ Abortion Research Paper FAQs

• First, you need to pick a debatable topic about abortion and develop a thesis statement on that subject.
• Next, choose the arguments to support your claim and use external evidence to back them up.
• End the paper with a concise wrap-up.
• Begin your introduction with a catchy fact or shocking statistics on the issue of abortion.
• Ask a rhetorical question to boost your readers’ interest.
• Cite a famous person’s words about the pros and cons of legal abortion.

To compose a strong opening for your abortion essay, make sure to provide some background and context for further discussion. Explain why the debate about abortions is so acute and what the roots of the problem are.

There are many interesting topics related to abortion, spanning the areas of sociology, ethics, and medicine. You can focus on the progression of the abortion debate along with civil rights or discuss abortion from a feminist perspective.

You can choose between qualitative and quantitative approaches for your abortion research. Hold a survey among women and report the findings of your qualitative study in a short report. Or, you can measure factual information in numbers and conduct quantitative research.

• The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Research Paper: Grammarly
• Scholarly Articles on Abortion: Gale
• Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion Worldwide: Guttmacher Institute
• Why Abortion Should Be Legal: News 24
• Pro and Con: Abortion: Britannica
• Organizing Academic Research Papers: The Introduction: Sacred Heart University
• How to Write a Thesis Statement for a Research Paper: Steps and Examples: Research.com
• Abortion: American Psychological Association
• Writing a Research Paper: University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Writing a Research Paper: Purdue University
• A Process Approach to Writing Research Papers: University of California, Berkeley
• What Is Qualitative vs. Quantitative Study?: Grand Canyon University
• Decimal Outlines: Texas A&M University
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

What is the most important part of any essay or research paper? Of course, it’s the thesis statement—a sentence that expresses the paper’s main idea and guides the readers through your arguments. But where do you place the thesis? You’ve probably answered, “in the introduction.” However, that’s not all of...

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

Rhetorical analysis is never a simple task. This essay type requires you to analyze rhetorical devices in a text and review them from different perspectives. Such an assignment can be a part of an AP Lang exam or a college home task. Either way, you will need a solid outline...

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

Discourse is the way people talk about any specific topic. It’s also the way in which language is used to convey social and historical meanings. Discourse analysis is the process that helps to understand the underlying message of what is being said. Sounds interesting? Keep reading to learn more.  This in...

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: So, let’s start digging deeper into this topic! ♻️ What Is Process Analysis? A process analysis describes and explains the succession of...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

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

Pro Life (abortion) Essays

Hook examples for pro-life (abortion) essays, personal story hook.

Meet Sarah, a woman who faced the difficult choice of whether to have an abortion or carry her unplanned pregnancy to term. Her experience sheds light on the emotional and ethical complexities of the pro-life stance.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Is every life, no matter how small or vulnerable, deserving of protection? This is the question at the heart of the pro-life abortion debate, and it's one we'll explore in-depth.

Statistical Hook

Did you know that there were [Insert statistic about abortion rates or procedures] abortions performed in [Insert year]? Explore the implications of these statistics in the context of pro-life advocacy.

Historical Hook

Take a journey through the history of the pro-life movement, from its origins to key milestones such as [Insert historical event related to pro-life activism]. Discover how this movement has evolved over time.

Quotation Hook

"The ultimate test of our humanity may be our willingness to defend the most vulnerable among us." — [Insert author]. This quote encapsulates the essence of the pro-life argument. Explore the moral and ethical foundations of this perspective.

Scientific Discovery Hook

Recent advances in medical technology have provided unprecedented insights into fetal development. Discover how these scientific discoveries have influenced the pro-life position.

Legal Debate Hook

Delve into the legal battles surrounding abortion rights, including landmark cases like [Insert case name]. Explore how pro-life activists have worked within the legal system to challenge abortion access.

Ethical Dilemma Hook

Imagine you're a medical professional faced with a choice that challenges your personal beliefs. Explore the ethical dilemmas that healthcare providers encounter when balancing pro-life convictions with patient autonomy.

Comparative Analysis Hook

Compare and contrast the pro-life perspective with other viewpoints on abortion, such as pro-choice and religious perspectives. Analyze the key differences and common ground in the abortion debate.

Human Rights Hook

Are unborn children entitled to the same human rights as adults? Explore the pro-life argument that emphasizes the inherent value and dignity of every human life, regardless of age or stage of development.

An Understanding of The Pro-choice and Pro-life of Abortion

A comparison of pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Why Abortion is a Wrong Decision

The reasons why abortion should be illegal in the united states, the right to life: examining the ethics of abortion, argumentation of anti-abortion and abortion-rights in united states, 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

Media Portrayal of Pro-life Versus Pro-choice to Americans

Pro life point of view: giving life a chance , double standard on life: pro-life vs pro-choice arguments in the abortion debate, why my worldview is pro-choice, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Debate Over Abortion and Planned Parenthood

Abortion prohibition: support of a pro-life movement, abortion as an immoral act of murder according to the pro-life argument, funding lies: misinformation from american pro-life organizations, debating the ethics of abortion: abortion as murder, evaluation of pro-life vs pro-choice point of view, a comparison of the attitudes of pro-lifers and pro-choicers on abortion, abortion: comparison of the pro-life vs pro-choice, protecting the unborn: the pro-life position against abortion, a comparison of pro-life and pro-choice ideologies, a pro-choice view of the issue of abortion, the attitudes of the pro-life and pro-choice groups on the controversial topic of abortion, pro-choice and pro-life arguments in the abortions debate, roe v wade legalized the freedom of the aborting an unborn child, christians' pro-life strandpoing on controversial issues, why abortion should be illegal: my view, supporting pro-choice is pro-women decision, a research paper on the debate over abortions in the united states, pro-life and pro-choice views on abortion in terms of religion, why abortions should not be illegal.

The pro-life movement is a social and political movement that advocates for the protection and preservation of human life, particularly emphasizing the right to life of unborn fetuses. It opposes the practice of abortion and seeks to restrict or eliminate access to abortion services.

Mother Teresa was an influential voice in the pro-life movement. She vehemently advocated for the sanctity of life, particularly speaking out against abortion. Mother Teresa believed that every life, no matter how vulnerable or disadvantaged, deserved love, care, and protection. Her unwavering commitment to the value of human life and her global impact made her an inspirational figure for many in the pro-life movement. Dr. Mildred Jefferson was the first African American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and a prominent pro-life advocate. As a physician, she believed that the medical profession should prioritize healing and saving lives, rather than ending them through abortion. Dr. Jefferson co-founded the National Right to Life Committee, a prominent pro-life organization in the United States. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an American obstetrician-gynecologist, played a crucial role in shaping the pro-life movement. He was one of the co-founders of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and actively advocated for abortion rights. However, after witnessing the development of ultrasound technology and performing thousands of abortions, he experienced a change of heart. Dr. Nathanson became a prominent pro-life advocate, exposing the reality of abortion through the documentary "The Silent Scream."

The roots of the pro-life movement can be found in the United States, where it gained significant momentum in the latter half of the 20th century. The movement emerged as a response to the legalization of abortion in the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade in 1973. Initially, the pro-life movement focused on grassroots activism, organizing rallies, marches, and protests to raise awareness about the sanctity of life and advocate for the protection of the unborn. Religious groups, particularly Catholic and evangelical communities, played a crucial role in mobilizing support for the movement. Over the years, the pro-life movement has expanded its scope to encompass a range of issues related to human dignity and the value of life, including opposition to euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryonic stem cell research. The movement has engaged in legal battles, lobbying efforts, and educational campaigns to influence public opinion and policy-making. Pro-life organizations have emerged, such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List, to coordinate and amplify their advocacy efforts.

Public opinion on the pro-life movement is diverse and often influenced by individual beliefs, values, and personal experiences. The issue of abortion, which lies at the core of the pro-life movement, evokes strong emotions and deeply held convictions on both sides of the debate. Supporters of the pro-life movement argue that every human life, including the unborn, deserves protection and that abortion is morally and ethically wrong. They often emphasize the rights of the unborn child and advocate for legal restrictions on abortion, promoting alternatives such as adoption and increased support for expectant mothers. Opponents of the pro-life movement, on the other hand, emphasize a woman's right to choose and argue for reproductive freedom and autonomy. They believe that decisions about pregnancy and abortion should be made by the individual, free from governmental interference. Public opinion polls on abortion and the pro-life movement have shown a range of perspectives over the years, often reflecting a complex mix of religious, moral, and political beliefs. These opinions can vary based on factors such as age, gender, religion, and political affiliation.

The topic of the pro-life movement is important to write an essay about due to its significant impact on society, ethics, and individual rights. It encompasses a complex and deeply divisive issue: abortion. Exploring the pro-life movement allows for an in-depth examination of the philosophical, moral, and legal arguments surrounding the right to life and the autonomy of pregnant individuals. Writing an essay on the pro-life movement provides an opportunity to delve into the historical, cultural, and religious factors that have shaped this movement. It allows for an exploration of the various perspectives, ranging from religious and moral beliefs to legal and political considerations. Additionally, the pro-life movement intersects with other relevant topics such as healthcare, women's rights, reproductive justice, and public policy. Furthermore, the pro-life movement is a subject of ongoing debate and activism, with its implications reaching beyond national borders. Analyzing this topic enables a critical examination of social attitudes, legislation, and the influence of grassroots organizations and interest groups.

1. A Gallup poll conducted in 2020 found that 46% of Americans identified as "pro-life," indicating their belief in the sanctity of life and opposition to abortion. 2. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization focused on reproductive health, in 2017, 58% of women obtaining abortions in the United States identified as religiously affiliated, with 17% identifying as Catholic and 27% as Protestant. 3. The pro-life movement has witnessed significant legislative efforts across different states. As of 2021, more than 20 states in the United States have enacted laws restricting abortion access, including mandatory waiting periods, gestational age limits, and regulations on abortion providers.

1. Guttmacher Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/ 2. National Right to Life. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nrlc.org/ 3. Americans United for Life (AUL). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://aul.org/ 4. Pew Research Center. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/ 5. Pro-Life Action League. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://prolifeaction.org/ 6. National Abortion Federation (NAF). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.prochoice.org/ 7. National Right to Life News. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/ 8. Journal of Medical Ethics. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://jme.bmj.com/ 9. Family Research Council (FRC). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.frc.org/ 10. National Catholic Register. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncregister.com/

Relevant topics

• Pro Choice (Abortion)
• Gun Control
• Homelessness
• Police Brutality
• Animal Testing
• I Have a Dream
• Black Lives Matter

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

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

• < Previous

Home > SCRIPPS > SCRIPPS_STUDENT > SCRIPPS_THESES > 1516

Scripps Senior Theses

Beyond pro-life vs. pro-choice: reproductive rights for women of color and low-income women.

Sabrina Wu Follow

Graduation Year

Document type.

Campus Only Senior Thesis

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Second Department

W.M. Keck Science Department

Elise Ferree

Alyssa Newman

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont .

In today’s debate over abortion, there are a multitude of additional factors to consider when restricting abortion for women of color and low-income women. The binary pro-life vs. pro-choice debate may seem like two clear-cut opposing sides, and many people find themselves agreeing firmly on one stance. However, these terms seek to implicitly portray the other stance unfavorably. Pro-life seems to imply that opponents are anti-life, or even “pro-death” and pro-choice insinuates that the opposition is “anti-choice” or favors coercion. The debate marginalizes women of color, poor women, and women from other marginalized communities because it does not take into account pre-existing conditions, such as financial incapability, harmful environmental factors and lack of social support, that restrict them from real choice to decide whether to have a child or have an abortion. Firstly, it is important to understand the complex issue of abortion in its procedure, its implications and its history in the United States, as well as the consequences upon denial of abortion and the effects of returning to a pre-Roe vs. Woe world. Abortion bans objectively affect low-income and women of color because of higher numbers of unwanted pregnancies, spatial inequalities to abortion access and its implicated costs, language barriers, financial difficulties and situational obstacles such as incarceration or environmental factors. In opposition to today’s abortion bans, it is important to get rid of the bans, prioritize women's health and work to create long-term solutions to combat economically and socially coerced abortions. We should work to reduce reasons for abortion, instead of criminalizing the procedure.

Recommended Citation

Wu, Sabrina, "Beyond Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: Reproductive Rights for Women of Color and Low-income Women" (2020). Scripps Senior Theses . 1516. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1516

This thesis is restricted to the Claremont Colleges current faculty, students, and staff.

Since February 28, 2020

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Colleges, Universities, and Library
• Schools, Programs, and Departments
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Faculty Submission
• Student Submission
• Policies and Guidelines

Useful Links

• Claremont Colleges Library
• Claremont Colleges Digital Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Feminist Futures: Reimagining Arguments for Abortion

By brittany r. leach | july 7, 2022.

Following the leaked Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood , some state legislatures passed new anti-abortion laws . Severe and numerous state-level restrictions on abortion, however, predate Dobbs v. Jackson . This policy trajectory is driven by the pro-life movement’s decades-long, unyielding activism and lobbying. The pro-life movement’s recent successes were enabled by the adoption of a superficially “pro-woman” approach in the 2010s―a strategy they have now abandoned. This creates an opportunity for feminists, who have long been in a defensive position, to reimagine arguments for abortion. Feminists can go on the offensive by fearlessly defending our values and visions of the future, affirming diversity, and addressing the emotional dimensions of reproductive politics.  

Feminists can go on the offensive by fearlessly defending our values and visions of the future, affirming diversity, and addressing the emotional dimensions of reproductive politics.  

Recent History of the Pro-Life Movement

The pro-life movement is highly effective at imagining futures where their political goals are realized and developing strategies for creating those futures. Their strategies evoke powerful emotions and exploit the weaknesses of mainstream pro-choice rhetoric. As the pro-life movement gained power, they shifted away from co-opting feminist language towards more aggressive and punitive language. Their policy strategy shifted accordingly. Laws exploiting jurisprudential loopholes, such as misleading “informed consent” provisions passed by many states in the 2000s and Targeted Regulations of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws in the 2010s , gave way by 2019 to outright bans and exorbitant penalties like 30-year prison sentences and $20,000 fines .

This turn towards―and then away from―a softer approach can be traced through the evolving strategies of Americans United for Life (AUL). AUL is an influential pro-life group that produces annual strategy guides, draft legislation, and other advocacy materials. In the early 2010s, AUL developed the “mother-child strategy,” which argues that abortion is harmful to women and fetuses. This strategy presents women as victims of a “profit-driven abortion industry” which convinces them they must abort their pregnancies to have successful careers and happy lives. It co-opts the language of women’s empowerment to argue for policies that fundamentally restrict women’s freedoms. The “mother-child strategy” presents anti-abortion laws as pro-woman. The AUL drafted and defended TRAP laws as necessary for women’s safety. They also lobbied for state-level restrictions that subtly inserted the idea of fetal personhood into the law without challenging Casey . For instance, fetal remains disposal regulations (a.k.a. fetus funeral laws) required burying or cremating aborted fetuses in cemeteries or funeral homes, instead of discarding them as medical waste.

Around 2018, the mother-child strategy was augmented by an increasingly punitive and triumphalist pro-life strategy. AUL’s 2017 Defending Life strategy guide reaffirmed the mother-child strategy and promised “future efforts to protect women and their unborn children from the harms inherent in abortion.” However, the 2018 edition promised to overturn Roe and boldly proclaimed a powerful vision of a world without abortion. Catherine Glenn Foster, then President of AUL, wrote that she dreams of “a day when abortion is not only illegal, but unthinkable.” The mother-child strategy deceptively presents women’s and fetuses’ interests as aligned by erasing women’s actual desires and assuming motherhood is a universal destiny, not a willing choice. Glenn Foster illustrates the horrifying endpoint of this seemingly “gentler” approach: a world where the pro-life viewpoint becomes so dominant that no one desires or even imagines having an abortion. Another fracture appears in the conflicting pro-life dissents in Garza v. Hargan (2018), an appellate case about undocumented minors’ abortion rights. Brett Kavanaugh endorses the mother-child strategy, defending delaying the minor’s abortion for her own good. Meanwhile, Karen LeCraft Henderson follows the new playbook, attacking the minor’s character, rights, and even her status as a person under the law.

Pro-life activists and legislators have adopted harsh rhetoric and policies , actively criminalizing abortion doctors , people who have abortions , and anyone who assists out-of-state abortions . By abandoning the mother-child strategy, the pro-life movement revealed that their supposed concern for women is insincere. This presents an opportunity to persuade moderately pro-life women who disapprove of abortion but never wanted miscarriages treated as potential homicide investigations . Outreach, while indispensable, should not sacrifice a bold, intersectional vision of the feminist future.

What Should Feminists Do?

Roe and Casey are now gone. One possible response to the pro-life movement’s success is for feminists to adopt the tactics that worked for their opponents. However, we should not uncritically adopt all pro-life tactics. The pro-life movement is highly disciplined and coordinated, with a relatively uniform message and policy strategy. Conversely, abortion rights advocates are ideologically and demographically diverse. Rather than worrying about fragmentation or inconsistent messaging, feminists should see diverse perspectives as a powerful strength that enables us to present many different arguments for abortion rights. We need multiple visions of feminist futures that reflect the myriad needs, desires, interests, experiences, and values of people who can become pregnant.

Rather than worrying about fragmentation or inconsistent messaging, feminists should see diverse perspectives as a powerful strength that enables us to present many different arguments for abortion rights.

Cisgender women, trans men, and nonbinary people from all racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds are affected by anti-abortion laws. Contesting these laws requires intersectional frameworks like reproductive justice that address multiple forms of oppression and build coalitions. Solidarity with queer/trans feminists is especially vital . This means highlighting overlaps between attacks on abortion rights and medical care for trans youth and aligning with LGBTQ movements for bodily autonomy. In response to cases like Garza v. Hargan , feminists should staunchly defend immigrants’ rights to abortion and healthy pregnancies. Criticizing all reproductive injustices in immigration detention―denial of prenatal care and treatment for incomplete miscarriages, forced sterilization, prison conditions that exacerbate miscarriage risk, shackling―best supports reproductive justice. Supporting the reproductive rights of detained immigrants may potentially divide moderates attracted by “mother-child strategy” rhetoric from the far-right extremists who seek to punish women, especially women of color.

Feminists must also address the emotional dimensions of reproductive politics. At times , pro-choice advocates have responded to controversies over fetal remains by appealing to neutral medical and legal standards. By contrast, pro-life activists have monopolized emotional appeals to gain support for fetus funeral laws. The experiences they exploit―such as mourning fetal death or celebrating an expected child―are real, but their connections with pro-life policy are dubious. Mourning miscarriage or stillbirth is common and legitimate; ending a wanted pregnancy that’s become life-threatening can be similarly devastating. Few regret abortion , but ending an unwanted pregnancy is emotionally quite different from aborting an otherwise welcome pregnancy because you can’t afford another child. There’s no contradiction between affirming these varied, sometimes messy emotions and defending abortion rights. Feminism is well-equipped to navigate this emotional complexity while promoting alternative policies that better address the concerns exploited by pro-life movements. For example, feminists can argue that differing feelings about fetal tissue means pregnant people (not governments or hospitals) should decide whether their miscarried or aborted fetuses are treated as medical waste or human remains.

Potentiality in Intersectional Feminism

The pro-life movement is abandoning the “mother-child” strategy that enabled its unprecedented success. This is an opportunity for feminists to deepen our defense of reproductive justice. Rather than avoiding emotion or watering down feminist values, we should persuade moderates with emotional appeals and also unreservedly center marginalized people. Only intersectional feminism addresses the full spectrum of reproductive experiences and emotions: the horrors of forced birth and forced sterilization; support for grieving pregnancy loss; the joys of gender-affirming healthcare and birth justice; and ambivalence about bringing wanted children into an unjust world.  

Brittany R. Leach is Assistant Professor in the School of Anthropology, Political Science, and Sociology at Southern Illinois University.

Photo: iStock.com/Muhammad Safuan

HUMPHREY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Center on women, gender, and public policy, quick links.

• Write for Us
• Email Sign-Up

Write For Us

• Click to Learn More

Social Media

Sign-up to receive the lastest news from the Gender Policy Report.

• < Previous

Home > Student Scholarship > THESES > 1033

Senior Theses and Projects

Abortion in america after roe: an examination of the impact of dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization on women’s reproductive health access.

Natalie Maria Caffrey Follow

Date of Award

Spring 5-12-2023

Degree Name

Bachelor of Arts

Public Policy and Law

First Advisor

Professor Adrienne Fulco

Second Advisor

Professor Glenn Falk

This thesis will examine the limitations in access to abortion and other necessary reproductive healthcare in states that are hostile to abortion rights, as well as discuss the ongoing litigation within those states between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. After analyzing the legal landscape and the different abortion laws within these states, this thesis will focus on the practical consequences of Dobbs on women’s lives, with particular attention to its impact on women of color and poor women in states with the most restrictive laws. The effect of these restrictive laws on poor women will be felt disproportionately due to their lack of ability to travel to obtain care from other states that might offer abortion services. And even if these women find a way to obtain access to abortions, there is now the real possibility of criminal prosecution for those who seek or assist women who obtain abortions post- Dobbs . To compound the problem, the Court made clear in Dobbs that its decision to revisit the privacy rights issue signals the possibility of new limitations on protections previously taken for granted in the areas of In vitro fertilization, birth control, emergency contraception, and other civil rights such as gay marriage. Finally, this thesis will examine the political and legal efforts of liberal states, private companies, and grassroots organizations attempting to mitigate Dobbs ’s effects. These pro-choice actors have, to some extent, joined forces to protect access for women in the United States through protective legislation and expanding access in all facets of reproductive healthcare, particularly for minority women who will be disproportionately affected by abortion bans in conservative states. The current efforts to mitigate the legal and medical implications of Dobbs will determine the future of women’s rights in America, not only regarding abortion but more broadly in terms of adequate reproductive care access.

Senior thesis completed at Trinity College, Hartford CT for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy & Law.

Recommended Citation

Caffrey, Natalie Maria, "Abortion in America After Roe: An Examination of the Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on Women’s Reproductive Health Access". Senior Theses, Trinity College, Hartford, CT 2023. Trinity College Digital Repository, https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/1033

Since May 15, 2023

Included in

American Politics Commons , Civil Law Commons , Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons , Constitutional Law Commons , Health Law and Policy Commons , Law and Gender Commons , Law and Politics Commons , Law and Society Commons , Litigation Commons , Public Law and Legal Theory Commons , Social Justice Commons , State and Local Government Law Commons , Supreme Court of the United States Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Submission Guidelines
• Submit Research

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• MJC Library & Learning Center
• Research Guides
• Abortion Research

Start Learning About Your Topic

Create research questions to focus your topic, featured current news, find articles in library databases, find web resources, find books in the library catalog, cite your sources, key search words.

Use the words below to search for useful information in books and articles .

• birth control
• pro-choice movement
• pro-life movement
• reproductive rights
• Roe v. Wade
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs v. Jackson)

Background Reading:

It's important to begin your research learning something about your subject; in fact, you won't be able to create a focused, manageable thesis unless you already know something about your topic.

This step is important so that you will:

• Begin building your core knowledge about your topic
• Be able to put your topic in context
• Create research questions that drive your search for information
• Create a list of search terms that will help you find relevant information
• Know if the information you’re finding is relevant and useful

If you're working from off campus , you'll be prompted to sign in if you aren't already logged in to your MJC email or Canvas. If you are prompted to sign in, use the same credentials you use for email and Canvas. 

Most current background reading 

• Issues and Controversies: Should Women in the United States Have Access to Abortion? June 2022 article (written after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade) that explores both sides of the abortion debate.
• Access World News: Abortion The most recent news and opinion on abortion from US newspapers.

More sources for background information

• CQ Researcher Online This link opens in a new window Original, comprehensive reporting and analysis on issues in the news. Check the dates of results to be sure they are sufficiently current.
• Gale eBooks This link opens in a new window Authoritative background reading from specialized encyclopedias (a year or more old, so not good for the latest developments).
• Gale In Context: Global Issues This link opens in a new window Best database for exploring the topic from a global point of view.

Choose the questions below that you find most interesting or appropriate for your assignment.

• Why is abortion such a controversial issue?
• What are the medical arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the religious arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the political arguments for and against abortion?
• What are the cultural arguments for and against abortion?
• What is the history of laws concerning abortion?
• What are the current laws about abortion?
• How are those who oppose access to abortion trying to affect change?
• How are those who support access to abortion trying to affect change?
• Based on what I have learned from my research, what do I think about the issue of abortion?
• State-by-State Abortion Laws Updated regularly by the Guttmacher Institute
• What the Data Says About Abortion in the U.S. From the Pew Research Center in June 2022, a look at the most recent available data about abortion from sources other than public opinion surveys.

Latest News on Abortion from Google News

All of these resources are free for MJC students, faculty, & staff.

• Gale Databases This link opens in a new window Search over 35 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. Gale databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• EBSCOhost Databases This link opens in a new window Search 22 databases simultaneously that cover almost any topic you need to research at MJC. EBSCO databases include articles previously published in journals, magazines, newspapers, books, and other media outlets.
• Facts on File Databases This link opens in a new window Facts on File databases include: Issues & Controversies , Issues & Controversies in History , Today's Science , and World News Digest .
• MEDLINE Complete This link opens in a new window This database provides access to top-tier biomedical and health journals, making it an essential resource for doctors, nurses, health professionals and researchers engaged in clinical care, public health, and health policy development.
• Access World News This link opens in a new window Search the full-text of editions of record for local, regional, and national U.S. newspapers as well as full-text content of key international sources. This is your source for The Modesto Bee from January 1989 to the present. Also includes in-depth special reports and hot topics from around the country. To access The Modesto Bee , limit your search to that publication. more... less... Watch this short video to learn how to find The Modesto Bee .

Browse Featured Web Sites:

• American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists Medical information and anti-abortion rights advocacy.
• American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Use the key term "abortion" in the search box on this site for links to reports and statistics.
• Guttmacher Institute Statistics and policy papers with a world-wide focus from a "research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide."
• NARAL Pro-Choice America This group advocates for pro-abortion rights legislation. Current information abortion laws in the U.S.
• National Right to Life Committee This group advocates for anti-abortion rights legislation in the U.S.

Why Use Books:

Use books to read broad overviews and detailed discussions of your topic. You can also use books to find  primary sources , which are often published together in collections.  

Where Do I Find Books?

You'll use the library catalog to search for books, ebooks, articles, and more.  

What if MJC Doesn't Have What I Need?

If you need materials (books, articles, recordings, videos, etc.) that you cannot find in the library catalog , use our  interlibrary loan service .

Your instructor should tell you which citation style they want you to use. Click on the appropriate link below to learn how to format your paper and cite your sources according to a particular style.

• Chicago Style
• ASA & Other Citation Styles
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:28 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mjc.edu/abortion

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC 4.0 Licenses .

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
• J Med Philos
• PMC10185666

The Scourges: Why Abortion Is Even More Morally Serious than Miscarriage

Calum miller.

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Several recent papers have suggested that the pro-life view entails a radical, implausible thesis: that miscarriage is the biggest public health crisis in the history of our species and requires radical diversion of funds to combat. In this paper, I clarify the extent of the problem, showing that the number of miscarriages about which we can do anything morally significant is plausibly much lower than previously thought, then describing some of the work already being done on this topic. I then briefly survey a range of reasons why abortion might be thought more serious and more worthy of prevention than miscarriage. Finally, I lay out my central argument: that reflection on the wrongness of killing reveals that the norms for ending life and failing to save life are different, in such a way that could justify the prioritization of anti-abortion advocacy over anti-miscarriage efforts. Such an account can also respond to similar problems posed to the pro-lifer, such as the question of whom to save in a “burning lab” type scenario.

I. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, pro-lifers have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the issue of abortion, while at the same time neglecting the apparently much greater number of deaths from spontaneous abortion ( Ord, 2008 ; Berg, 2017 ; Simkulet, 2017 ). A similar problem is suggested by the scenario which asks us to consider whether we would save multiple embryos or a single child in a burning laboratory—the intuition commonly being that we should save the single child. 1 Different implications might be drawn from this, including that pro-lifers do not really believe that embryos are human beings with a right to life, 2 or that pro-lifers are more interested in limiting women’s autonomy, or both. In this paper, I marshal a series of arguments to explain why these conclusions are unwarranted. In particular, I suggest that reflection on the wrongness of killing shows that it is largely unrelated to consequences, and even largely unrelated to the badness of death. This furnishes the pro-lifer with a reason to seek the prevention of abortion more urgently than the prevention of miscarriage, and indeed for pro-lifers to preferentially rescue older children over embryos. But, it also supplies a more general reason to think that the distinction between killing and letting die is relevant, and for thinking that the norms shaping behavior in those situations differ.

II. HOW MANY INDUCED ABORTIONS AND MISCARRIAGES ARE THERE?

It is worth briefly reviewing the evidence regarding induced abortion and miscarriage. This does not make a great difference to my central argument, but most authors have noted that even if there are clear reasons to prioritize tackling a lesser number of abortions over a greater number of miscarriages, there is some residual (indeed, substantial) reason for pro-lifers to address those miscarriages which do occur, which undoubtedly number many millions. Let me say something about this.

Estimates for the number of miscarriages vary, although it appears likely that most are exaggerated. Berg suggests up to 89% of all pregnancies, while Ord suggests that there are 226 million worldwide every year. These are almost certainly vast overestimates. In a recent comprehensive review, Jarvis (2017) proposes somewhere between 40% and 60% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, noting that higher figures are implausibly excessive. Around 10%–35% of embryos are lost before implantation, a further 10%–20% before clinical recognition of pregnancy, and 5%–15% between clinical recognition and birth. We note in particular the large range for embryo loss before implantation: the relevant events are extremely difficult to measure, and so we have very low confidence in our estimates.

Globally, there are around 140 million births a year ( Our World in Data, 2020 ). If around half of the pregnancies are ended prematurely (the midpoint of 40%–60%), then there are around 140 million spontaneous abortions a year. This is obviously a very large number—far exceeding the number of induced abortions, even. That said, it is still 80 million or so less than Ord’s estimate.

This does not, of course, take into account induced abortions. Some pregnancies end neither in birth nor spontaneous abortion, and this will affect the estimate of spontaneous abortions (if there are more total pregnancies, then there are likely more spontaneous abortions, although some of these will result in induced abortions before a miscarriage occurs). This does not affect the estimate by a very great deal, relatively speaking. Very likely, the number is somewhere between 100 and 200 million, which is enough for the argument to get going. Ord and Berg have likely overestimated it by quite some way, however, which reduces considerably the ostensible disproportion with which they allege pro-lifers to act.

Blackshaw and Rodger (2019) note that about a third of spontaneous abortions are anembryonic pregnancies, where the embryo proper does not actually form (or forms briefly, and then disappears). If the embryo never forms, then according to the standard pro-life view, there is no organism and hence, no life is lost. This would reduce the salience of spontaneous abortion for pro-lifers. However, the events in early pregnancy are too poorly understood (at least in frequency) to know how many anembryonic pregnancies involve embryos that formed and then were destroyed, which would presumably still count as deaths. Although there are other “pregnancies” where a human being likely does not form, 3 I shall ignore these and take the estimate of 140 million lives lost as broadly correct—my argument is precisely intended to explain how pro-lifers are justified in paying more attention to a more limited number of lives.

Although Ord and Berg overestimate the number of miscarriages, the number of abortions is also likely to be substantially lower than some of their pro-life respondents (and authorities such as the WHO) have suggested. Blackshaw and Rodger cite a study from the Guttmacher Institute which estimates around 56 million abortions a year. ( Sedgh et al., 2016 ) Although details of the data used in the Guttmacher study are sparse, it seems reasonable to believe they have relied at least in part on previous Guttmacher studies that overestimate the number of illegal abortions by an order of magnitude in many countries. For example, Koch, Bravo et al. (2012) have provided powerful arguments that the Guttmacher Institute overestimates the number of abortions in Colombia by around 10-fold. In Mexico, a Guttmacher study estimated 137–194,000 abortions per annum for Mexico’s Federal District. After abortion was legalized in this region (the only region in the country), however, the subsequent 5 years yielded only 78,544 abortions across the entire period ( Koch, Aracena et al., 2012 ). 4 Given how prone to radical overestimates abortion statistics are, 56 million may be a large overestimate—although there are certainly many millions every year. 5 Probably, the total number of spontaneous abortions still exceeds the number of induced abortions by several times. For Colgrove (2021) and Blackshaw and Rodger (2019) , this does affect the argument, although not by a great deal and likewise for my own argument.

III. CAUSES OF MISCARRIAGE

As Colgrove describes at length, “spontaneous abortion” or “miscarriage” (used interchangeably here) is not a cause of death in itself: it is just the phenomenon of natural deaths in utero (prior to viability, after which point the terminology used is “stillbirth”). So, saying that spontaneous abortion is responsible for more deaths than induced abortion is like saying that natural death is responsible for more deaths than homicide or genocide. This is evidently not a very persuasive argument for not paying significant attention to homicide and genocide, nor is it very informative about the causes of death.

Spontaneous abortion is made up of a variety of different causes, as helpfully summarized by Blackshaw and Rodger. They note that around 60% are due to aneuploidies, where an embryo has an anomalous number of chromosomes in each cell (as in Down Syndrome). 6 We can also add to these euploid genetic causes ( Colley et al., 2019 ), and hence, the number of miscarriages due to genetic causes is greater—though we are unsure by how much—than simply the proportion due to aneuploidies. Other causes include immunological conditions, thrombophilias, endocrinological causes, uterine malformations, and acute maternal infections. Certain lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking), chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes), and non-modifiable risk factors (e.g., increasing age) also appear to contribute.

Blackshaw and Rodger use this analysis to argue that induced abortion is actually one of the largest causes of prenatal death: on their analysis, 44% are due to aneuploidies, 27% due to induced abortion, and 29% due to other causes. 7 They note, further, that treating aneuploidies is very difficult since we have no treatment and, since they usually occur before detection of pregnancy, prevention is likewise difficult. Ord rightly objects that this does not rule out research. For example, Alzheimer’s is largely unpreventable, and so we invest instead primarily in research. Ord also suggests sperm sorting to prevent the anomalies in the first place. Blackshaw and Rodger respond to the suggestion of research by noting that most such research is likely to be ethically problematic if, for example, it involves research on embryos. But, in Ord’s defence, it is not entirely clear that this is the case: aneuploidy and spontaneous abortion both occur in animals, and animal models may shed considerable light on the causes and possible prevention. Blackshaw and Rodger note also that keeping human beings with fatal chromosomal defects alive for an inevitably short period is not necessarily an overriding moral obligation: this is true, but if those fatal chromosomal defects are themselves remediable in principle, then this response will not work, since we would have at least some obligation (even if not overriding) to extend their lives.

There is a bit more we can say about the relevance of chromosomal anomalies, however. First, the aneuploidies are themselves quite varied: Hassold et al. (1980) report that about a quarter are due to Turner Syndrome (only one sex chromosome, X), nearly half due to trisomies (such as Down, Patau, and Edwards Syndrome), and nearly a quarter triploidy and tetraploidy (one or two extra copies of each chromosome), inter alia.

Here is one pro-life response: just as “miscarriage” is an artificially large group, so too is “aneuploidy”: it groups together a wide range of conditions (from Down Syndrome to Turner Syndrome, to tetraploidy), which do not really constitute a single cause of death. The largest cause of death is Turner Syndrome, responsible for, we suppose, 15% of spontaneous abortions, so perhaps 20,000,000 lives lost a year. This may be equal to, or even fewer than, the number of induced abortions (certainly considerably less according to the Guttmacher and WHO estimates). 8

That the causes may be split up into specific conditions may not affect the argument significantly. After all, if we suppose that resources should be apportioned relative to the burden of mortality, Ord and Berg still have an argument that the total expenditure on chromosomal anomalies ought to exceed spending on induced abortion when added altogether, and clearly pro-lifers do not expend as many resources on chromosomal anomalies as on induced abortion. That said, there being a wider variety of conditions may affect the efficiency of the research and hence, could justify more spending on abortion: if miscarriages had 140,000,000 different causes, it is plausible that the cost to find a treatment for 50,000,000 spontaneous abortions is likely to be higher than the cost of preventing 50,000,000 induced abortions. So, a significant amount may depend on the extent to which the disparate causes of spontaneous abortion are likely to have treatments derived through similar or the same research. Berg and Ord may have a point that pro-lifers, on the whole, have not even attempted this calculation (difficult though it surely is): they may be right that the pro-life community as a whole has a moderate duty to at least attempt a calculation of this sort before deciding that preventing abortion is most cost-efficient.

However, there is a much more powerful reason why the proportion of deaths caused by genetic anomalies (chromosomal or otherwise) and the careful distinction of these genetic anomalies may be important. The reason is that some genetic anomalies—especially those in question here—may be so radical as to prevent the creation of a human organism or, more plausibly, that changes to certain genetic constitutions may not be identity preserving.

We clearly do not want to say that any chromosomal anomaly prevents the entity constituting an organism. People with Turner Syndrome and Down Syndrome are clearly human beings and moral equals. 9 What about those with tetraploidy? That seems less clear. I suspect we do not know enough about genetics at this point to be able to judge whether most entities with extreme chromosomal anomalies are human organisms. 10 My own view is that most or all are. In any case, perhaps even uncertainty should make us err on the side of caution, granting them personhood unless we have clear evidence that they are not organisms. So, this response will not do a great deal.

What seems much more plausible is that large changes in genetic constitution may not be identity-preserving. I have previously defended this view ( Miller and Pruss, 2017 ), noting that even some relatively small genetic changes (such as in Tay–Sachs disease, which can be caused by mutation of a single base pair) may not be identity-preserving. Would I be the same person if I had Tay–Sachs or Turner Syndrome? Or if I had the opposite assortment of sex chromosomes? It is very plausible that I would not be. If so, then it seems like most aneuploidies—and hence, a very large proportion of spontaneous abortions—result in a different human being to the human being they would have formed if the anomaly had not occurred.

If substantial genetic changes are not identity-preserving, then many genetic anomalies are not treatable. This is not for technical inability—which could be solved with enough research—but because it is metaphysically impossible to treat the genetic anomaly without altering the identity of the individual. Hence, these deaths are unpreventable in a way that cannot be solved by research, and so it is difficult to see how any resources could be devoted to them.

On a certain view—which I suspect most pro-lifers would endorse—this matters a great deal. On this view, it is not necessarily wrong—and certainly not comparable to murder—to bring into existence a genetically anomalous child, even if one could have acted differently and brought into existence a healthy child. 11 Indeed, intuitively, the main reason why it might be wrong to bring into existence a severely disabled child is the suffering that the child would bear. This reason is nullified in the case of a child who will not suffer because they die before their nervous system is sufficiently developed, or if the particular kind of suffering would only occur at a later point after the spontaneous abortion (e.g., from hypoxia due to inadequate ventilation). In short, it is not comparable to murder to bring into existence a child with, say, trisomy 2, who will die before birth.

This is important because Ord and others suggest that these deaths are preventable by preventing that particular conception, with that genetic constitution, from occurring. But, preventing a person from ever existing is hardly morally equivalent to saving their life, even though both are spared death (in different senses). A person with trisomy 2 is not benefitted by being prevented from ever existing in the first place. Conversely, they are not harmed by being brought into existence for a very short time. Thus, it makes no sense to say that these are preventable deaths, or to say that pro-lifers have a duty to prevent these conceptions taking place. They are preventable deaths only in the sense that they stop someone from ever existing in the first place: by that measure, every death is preventable. Clearly, this is implausible and should not have a significant impact on policy—preventing deaths in the sense of preventing people with a short life expectancy from existing is simply not a duty, certainly not a duty comparable to preventing homicides. At the very least, we can say that bringing into existence persons who will die shortly after their conception, and thereby in some sense causing those persons’ death, is obviously not equivalent to murder. Arguably, it is not wrong at all. Hence, there is no argument for thinking that pro-lifers should seek to prevent these deaths over the deaths caused by induced abortion. 12

I said earlier that the distinction of specific genetic anomalies may be important for this response. Some genetic changes are plausibly identity-preserving, while others are not, and so pro-lifers may have some reason to research gene therapy for some individuals as a way to save lives. But, that number of individuals will probably be a much smaller number than the number of lives lost to aneuploidy. It is certainly plausible that many aneuploid individuals are literally untreatable—treating them is not even metaphysically possible. And so the number of preventable miscarriages is plausibly much lower than 140 million.

If I am right that the number of induced abortions is vastly lower than 56 million, these points will still not suffice. For, even if we exclude all those cases of “essential” aneuploidy (and other genetic anomalies which are literally untreatable), the number of spontaneous abortions with preventable causes may well still exceed the number of induced abortions, and so still generate a potential inconsistency for the pro-lifer.

Still, everyone in the debate is agreed that pro-lifers should ensure that something is being done to save lives lost in miscarriages. We should also agree that the loss of life due to miscarriage is seriously regrettable—this is far from unintuitive, however. Indeed, it is difficult to give an account of the badness of death that does not have the implication that spontaneous abortion is a very bad thing, not to mention the grief women suffer from miscarriage—enough for the UK’s leading abortion provider to refer to it as “The inconceivable grief of baby loss” ( British Pregnancy Advisory Service, 2020 ).

As it turns out, much is already being done to try and prevent miscarriages: a great deal of research, involving many millions of pounds, is already being done on the causes of miscarriage. Even in 2005, over $2.9 billion was spent globally on genetics research ( Pohlhaus and Cook-Deegan, 2008 ), while the fertility business makes an estimated $25 billion a year in sales, much of which presumably goes into research on helping pregnancies come to term ( The Economist, 2019 ). Sometimes this research is carried out specifically by pro-life or Catholic organizations (see NaProTechnology, 2020 ). It goes without saying that there is already enormous global expenditure on public health campaigns trying to stop smoking, on research on chronic conditions contributing to miscarriage like diabetes, and so on. Even recurrent miscarriage is the subject of a great deal of research. There is no large research budget for “miscarriage” generally because it has a wide variety of causes. But, for those individual causes, there are enormous research budgets. While a quantitative analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, it seems plausible that money spent on research helping to prevent miscarriages vastly exceeds money spent on preventing abortion, even when controlling for the numbers of miscarriages and abortions. 13 If so, it is hardly clear what pro-lifers are expected to do. We do not expect researchers in non-malignant thyroid disease to spend any time, let alone a large majority of it, on researching cancer, despite the far greater mortality of the latter. Why? Because other people are already doing it, disproportionately, even. Likewise, given the relatively meager budgets of pro-life organizations, it is hard to see why they should spend it on miscarriage research, given the vastly greater sums of money already being spent on such research. 14

IV. OTHER REASONS FOR PRIORITIZING ANTI-ABORTION ADVOCACY

Before turning to the argument that I wish to develop in detail, it is worth briefly summarizing just a few reasons (in addition to the considerations above) why pro-lifers might reasonably consider abortion to be more worth preventing than miscarriage. These will be of relevance to my central argument, as we shall see. We begin with a series of reasons why abortion is more degrading than miscarriage:

• 1) Methods of abortion are often degrading. In England and Wales, for example, around 10,000 abortions every year involve dismembering the live fetus, a fetus at around 14 weeks’ gestation or more ( Department of Health and Social Care, 2020 ). In some other countries, surgical abortions (of which those at later gestations involve dismemberment) are more common still ( Guttmacher Institute, 2019 ; Popinchalk and Sedgh, 2019 ). Public opinion in the U.S. shifted significantly toward the pro-life position in the mid-1990s ( Gallup, 2020 ) around the time partial-birth abortion began to be publicized, eventually leading to a federal prohibition. Partial birth abortion was normally performed on healthy babies in healthy mothers ( New York Times, 1997 ) and involved delivering a living child all except for the head, at which point “blunt scissors” are forced into the baby’s skull so that the “skull contents” (i.e., the brain) can be suctioned out ( Haskell, 1992 ). One nurse testified:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus … The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp … He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used. ( Supreme Court of the United States, Gonzales v. Carhart , 550 U.S. 124 (2007) , 8)

• In my experience, those hearing this description have described it as straightforward murder, if not a crime against humanity, regardless of their general position on abortion. In any case, it is not difficult to see why someone would regard this, other things being equal, as worse than a miscarriage, even than a stillbirth of the same gestation. It is worth noting that recent research suggests fetal pain from 12 weeks is distinctly possible—and certainly at later stages ( Derbyshire and Bockmann, 2020 ).
• A ban on this procedure was vetoed by President Clinton, opposed by the majority of House and Senate Democrats, and even declared unconstitutional by four Supreme Court judges. 15 Although partial birth abortions constituted only a small proportion of abortions, it was responsible for an estimated 3,000–5,000 abortions a year, 500–750 of which were after 7 months’ gestation ( Johnston, 2007 ). By contrast, Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (2019) described children dying by gun violence in the US as a “national health emergency,” responsible for around the same number of deaths ( Cunningham et al., 2018 ). Partial birth abortions alone counted only for a very small proportion of surgical abortions in the US. This is relevant because a major political party in the most powerful country in the world supporting this kind of degradation—while claiming that the same number of deaths from another cause is a “national health emergency”—adds a further level of systemic institutional degradation against human beings in the womb.
• 2) Abortion, on the pro-life view, involves a violent attack within the family—hence, many early Christian writers referred to it as “parricide.” As well as parricide being particularly destructive within a family, widespread parricide plausibly results in a more general destruction of the family by the normalization of the dispensability of children and the erosion of the appreciation for motherhood. Since, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, the family is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State,” 16 the widespread breakdown of the family is plausibly a unique and serious evil to be prevented at any cost, in contrast to miscarriage which—while causing families much grief—does not involve the same kind of relational fracturing. Relatedly, abortion contributes to a widespread culture of the dispensability of children, which plausibly contributes in the same way to more general societal harms. Along similar lines, pro-lifers often think that abortion contributes to a sexual culture that is likewise destructive to human flourishing (and disproportionately so for women and the poor) by severing the link between sex and procreation ( Alvaré, 2011 ).
• 3) Abortion involves the systematic and state-sponsored violence against a particular class of people, which most of us would regard as worse than the natural death of the same number of people. One reason we are appalled at the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, the Armenian genocide, and so on, is because of the systematic and state-sponsored violence specifically impacting (and even targeted toward) a vulnerable demographic group on a large scale. There are multiple elements here, all of which no doubt contribute to the horror of these genocides, and all of which seem on initial inspection to justify greater attention than the equivalent number of deaths by natural causes. Even on much smaller scales, many of us think that it is reasonable to take radical action over violence against vulnerable groups, exceeding our response to natural deaths among those groups. Perhaps the most salient example is from the Black Lives Matter movement. The Guardian reports that in 2016, 39 unarmed black men were killed by US police. Compared to other causes of death, this is a relatively small number. Yet, we rightly realize that it is much more salient than 39 deaths from natural causes, justifying a much more significant public response. As Colgrove puts it, “BLM has a particular target. It is not solely fixated on saving as many lives as possible. It is aimed at revealing (and undoing) systematic injustice that is directed toward certain people” ( Colgrove, 2021 ).
• 4) Abortion involves the systematic dehumanization of a class of people. One of the most basic rights of human beings is to be recognized as a person, 17 and it seems clear that the dehumanization of certain classes of people (whether Jews, black slaves, Tutsis, disabled people, or others) is a serious aggravating factor to many crimes, especially genocides. This raises a particularly salient point: as well as dehumanization being an aggravating element of mass killing, working to oppose dehumanization constitutes the bulk of pro-life work in many countries. It may even be that humanizing the fetus is the best way to garner public support for putting resources into preventing miscarriage, and that discussion of abortion is one of the best ways to demonstrate the humanity of the fetus (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and its effect on public opinion suggest this may be the case). 18
• 5) In the case of abortion, tens to hundreds of millions of dollars are spent advocating for abortion all over the world as a basic human right and as a part of essential health care. There is not a similar movement promoting miscarriage. This means that the dehumanization involved in abortion is not only ideological: it is institutionalized in our economic system, with hundreds of millions of dollars invested into its propagation. 19
• 6) In the case of abortion, the killing and dehumanization receive the imprimatur of the state and the law (and institutions like the UN and the WHO, insofar as they are able to make pronouncements not reflecting international consensus). The expressive function of the law is powerful—we can see this by asking whether we would allow, for example, the state to declare that African Americans are not fully human, if for some reason it meant that they received better treatment. 20 People are divided on this question—which is enough, I think, to show that the expressive function of the law plausibly might outweigh a certain number of lost lives. It is one degradation to have a large number of the population dehumanize you: it is another level of degradation to have this enshrined in law, and in the major political institutions. Thus, the ideological and economic weight behind abortion is compounded by political weight; it is plausibly more degrading—and certainly more of a problem—for the dehumanization of a class of human beings to have the imprimatur of the ruling institutions. 21
• 7) If, as many prominent philosophers have thought, virtue is a constituent of well-being, then on the pro-life view abortion is also extremely harmful to those participating in abortion. More generally, if you think that our character is more important than our experiences, you would have a strong interest in preventing abortion that does not apply to miscarriage. There is also evidence linking abortion with increased suicide rates and increased mortality ( Fergusson et al., 2013 ; Karalis et al., 2017 ), suggesting more lives may be lost due to abortion (though of course, not enough to match those lost in miscarriage). While this does not necessarily make abortion more degrading for the primary victim, it is another reason to oppose more strongly than miscarriage. 22
• 8) One of the primary obstacles to generating substantial societal support for miscarriage and abortion prevention is the view that unborn human beings are not really human, or are not equally morally considerable. (Effective) anti-abortion advocacy helps to remove this obstacle for both causes, and perhaps more effectively than miscarriage prevention advocacy.

As a sense of what is at work here, imagine tens or hundreds of thousands of members of another vulnerable group were dismembered alive each year, with the social, legislative, and financial support of the most powerful governments around the world, as well as immensely powerful NGOs, the UN, and the WHO. Imagine this was just the tip of the iceberg for many millions more who were killed in less graphically violent ways. Now imagine there was already a great deal of research being put into saving these people from dying due to natural causes. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that we would think we had a mandate to invest significantly more resources to stop the state-sponsored killing, compared to preventing the equivalent number of people dying from natural causes. We certainly could not rightly criticize human rights groups for paying significantly more attention to the former. The same situation is broadly what we have in the case of abortion, from the pro-life viewpoint. Indeed, comparisons to mass killings such as the Holocaust are perhaps the best way to understand the pro-life mindset for our purposes here , since such comparisons are the intuitive reason many pro-lifers offer for making abortion a central political and social priority.

I make no claims here about exactly to what extent the large numbers involved contribute to the horror of mass killings and systemic dehumanization. It might be that what made other mass killings so abhorrent is the large numbers. If so, then this only serves to make abortion more serious. In the case of abortion, we appear to have both factors: systemic violence and degradation, as well as enormous numbers.

Since my central argument is to do with the respect owed to victims of killing, all of the considerations here which pertain to the degradation and dehumanization involved in abortion will amplify the force of that argument, to which we now turn.

V. THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT

The suggestion that killing and letting die are morally inequivalent is hardly a new one, nor is its application in this context. Indeed, it is the obvious response to the argument: it is the most obvious difference between induced abortion and miscarriage. But perhaps it is undermotivated or ad hoc. Why think that they are morally distinct? Indeed, some philosophers have suggested that they are not distinct when all other things are equal ( Simkulet, 2019 ). Here, I propose an argument for thinking that they are distinct, and that this has significant implications for prioritizing the prevention of killing vis-à-vis the prevention of natural deaths.

My starting point is with the badness of death and the wrongness of killing. In the context of abortion, this has been heavily influenced by Marquis’ (1989) seminal work arguing that abortion (and killing more generally) are wrong because they deprive someone of a future life of value. This is a kind of deprivationist account of the wrongness of killing, and for many people it is an intuitive account of the wrongness of killing. Marquis’ paper is no doubt popular because it was one of the first major papers to be published for the pro-life position in the recent renaissance of pro-life philosophy. It is also an extremely simple and intuitive argument. As it happens, I think that the paper is largely correct, accounting for one reason why abortion is wrong. Marquis’ work deserves the attention it has received, including in recent discussions. 23

Now I do not, in fact, think that it is the central reason for the wrongness of abortion. To help explain my position, consider another feature of Marquis’ argument: it implies that the wrongness of killing is closely tied to the badness of death, which is widely variable. As Blackshaw and Rodger (2019) note, the badness of death differs a large amount between persons. But, if killing is wrong primarily because it deprives someone of a future life of value, then the wrongness of killing can vary from extremely wrong (in the case of embryos) to minimally, or perhaps not wrong at all (in the case of people killed near the end of their lives, or in the case of severely disabled people who are not able to enjoy much). The precise results in these cases depend on what is considered “valuable” about life, but it seems as though defenders of Marquis tend primarily to emphasize valuable experiences, rather than the inherent value of life itself.

It has been claimed that this kind of deprivationism is the standard view among pro-lifers. Indeed, Simkulet criticizes Friberg-Fernros’ defence of the significance of the distinction between killing and letting die by saying that “this view is at odds with the commonsense antiabortion position, grounding the wrongness of induced abortion not in the death of the fetus, but in the act of killing (or in disconnect cases, letting die)” ( Simkulet, 2019 ).

In fact, however, there are many reasons to think that the orthodox pro-life position is not based solely (or even primarily) on the badness of death. I would go further: it is actually intrinsic to the pro-life account that the wrongness of killing is not correlated with the badness of death. For example, pro-lifers are typically just as fiercely opposed to euthanasia or assisted suicide—even if the patient has almost no life of value remaining—as they are to abortion, which prevents many decades of valuable life. If killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of a future life of value, abortion should be considered orders of magnitude (if someone is killed by involuntary euthanasia a day before they were likely to die anyway, then abortion would be roughly 365 × 70 = roughly 25,000 times worse, or more if the euthanasia recipient is looking forward only to a day of misery) more wrong than euthanasia. But, pro-lifers tend to consider them roughly commensurate—or, at the very least, not as though one is 25,000 times more serious than the other. Pro-lifers object vehemently to the killing of people who are not likely to enjoy significant subjective goods in the future—for example, anencephalic children in the case of abortion, 24 or severely disabled or very elderly/terminally ill people in the case of euthanasia. The enormous effort to prevent the killing 25 of Terri Schiavo and the more recent case of Vincent Lambert are a testament to the seriousness with which pro-lifers take killing even in such cases. This is strong evidence that pro-lifers are not primarily pro-life because of potential future subjective goods to be experienced by the victim.

Second, the “traditional” pro-life approach was to speak of the “sanctity” of life. This terminology fits very well with the sense of intrinsic value and respect in the account I describe, and not so well with the view that life is valuable because of the subjective goods that may be experienced. Third, it is a staple of the pro-life view that life is intrinsically valuable—this is at odds with a view that takes life to be valuable primarily because of experienced goods. Pro-lifers make an extremely large point of valuing all human life, including where the quality of life may be very low. Pro-lifers consistently focus on the value of those with severe disabilities, which is surprising if they think the value of life is primarily determined by experienced goods. Fourth, many pro-lifers are pro-life for religious reasons, and religious prohibitions on killing have rarely, if ever, spoken of future goods. On the contrary, the Christian tradition, at least, has expressly used terminology more suitable to the respect theory I describe. This is perhaps best exemplified by Lactantius’ comments on killing at the turn of the fourth century: “Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal” ( Divine Institutes, 6.20 ). Finally, as Friberg-Fernros (2019) points out, the intention is extremely important for the pro-life view, which is why pro-lifers allow the foreseen death of fetuses to save the mother’s life, without ever allowing the intended death of fetuses.

Pro-lifers probably come across as being deprivationists primarily because many of them hold that deprivation is an additional reason why abortion is wrong, and—within philosophy—because of the influence of Marquis’ article on the debate in recent decades. But, that is no reason to suppose that the majority of pro-lifers only or primarily rely on deprivationist arguments for their view on abortion.

What all this suggests is that pro-lifers do not think that the wrongness of killing and the badness of death are very closely related—at least, not if the “badness of death” is measured in terms of the deprivation of positive subjective experiences.

This is important for the following reason: the comparison between spontaneous abortion and induced abortion relies crucially on one specific similarity: they both involve the same deprivation to the individual. Both individuals lose the large majority of their lives, and this is supposed to be what makes spontaneous abortion as pressing for the pro-lifer as induced abortion (and more so, once the numbers are added). But, if the wrongness of killing is not very closely tied to the badness of death, then the fact that both are similarly deprived (and hence the badness of death is roughly the same for each) may be of negligible relevance. Simply put, my argument runs thus:

• The main similarity between babies or fetuses killed by abortion and those whose lives are ended in miscarriage is that they are both deprived of the same subjective goods. 26
• However, deprivation of subjective goods is not the primary determinant of the wrongness of killing.
• If 1 and 2, then the main similarity between abortion and miscarriage has little to do with the wrongness of killing.
• Hence, the main similarity between abortion and miscarriage has little to do with the wrongness of killing.

If this is right, then drawing attention to this similarity between abortion and miscarriage does little to persuade the pro-lifer that they should give both equal attention. But, it would help if we had (a) some motivation for premise 2 and (b) an alternative account of the wrongness of killing that pointed toward (even if not explicating precisely) the reason we may be more worried about killing by abortion than death by miscarriage.

McMahan (2002) , in his magisterial volume on the ethics of killing, offers pointers toward both of these.

VI. IS THE DEPRIVATION ACCOUNT TRUE?

McMahan calls this sort of account the Harm-Based Account—killing is wrong because of the harm inflicted on the individual, harm being conceived as the loss of future goods. McMahan thinks that a fatal flaw to this account is that it thinks identity is what matters. In fact, according to McMahan, it does not: what matters is prudential unity relations—psychological relations tying an individual’s psychological life together. Hence, McMahan talks of “time-relative interests,” where these are essentially ordinary interests, whose importance is augmented or discounted, depending on the strength of the psychological connections between an individual at different times. 27

McMahan goes on to suggest that the Time-Relative Interest Account of the wrongness of killing is likewise deficient, however, at least for persons. Why is this? McMahan says that both the Harm-Based Account and the Time-Relative Interest Account have the implication that killing can be more or less wrong depending on the quality of the victim’s life . 28 This, McMahan says,

profoundly offends our sense of the moral equality of persons…The common view, in short, is that the wrongness of killing persons does not vary with such factors such as the degree of harm caused to the victim, the age, intelligence, temperament, or social circumstances of the victim, whether the victim is well liked or generally despised, and so on. ( 2002 , 234–5)

McMahan dubs this the Equal Wrongness Thesis.

The Equal Wrongness Thesis is intuitively plausible. Human equality, and its relevance to fundamental inviolable rights, are popular ethical ideas, on which it seems reasonable to base ethical opinion in the absence of countervailing considerations. Note that if it is true, then premise 2 of the above argument is true: if all killings are in some sense equally wrong, 29 specifically if they are equally wrong regardless of the quality of the anticipated goods in an individual’s life, then the wrongness of killing cannot be dependent on the deprivation of one’s future. Pro-lifers do not need to prove the Equal Wrongness Thesis to respond to the arguments of Ord et al.—they just need to show that there is a plausible reason for their discrepant approaches toward abortion and miscarriage. The Equal Wrongness Thesis is certainly at least plausible.

VII. IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT OF THE WRONGNESS OF KILLING?

McMahan goes on to suggest an alternative account that can explain the pro-lifer’s discrepant attitudes, along with a number of other ethical difficulties. It is, therefore, a fruitful theory, and one that I believe accords very well with our intuitions. McMahan suggests the following:

If the killing of persons is always equally wrong, and if all persons are of equal worth, the wrongness of killing may be a function of the worth of the person (rather than of the value of the person’s subsequent life)…a person, a being of incalculable worth, demands the highest respect. To kill a person…is an egregious failure of respect for the person and his worth. It is to annihilate that which is irreplaceable, to show contempt for that which demands reverence…Killing is, in short, an offence against what might be called a requirement of respect for persons and their worth. ( 2002 , 242) 30

McMahan eventually settles on a Two-Tiered Account, according to which the killing of persons is wrong for these sorts of reasons, but for those below the threshold of personhood and the threshold of respect, the wrongness of killing is governed by the Time-Relative Interest Account.

Let us give a few clarifications on this account. First, on this account, “the worth of the victim is entirely independent of the value…of the contents of his possible life in the future” ( 2002 , 243). Hence, it supports premise 2 of my argument. Second, it supports the Equal Wrongness Thesis, since it says that all killings of persons are, in a basic sense, equally wrong.

Third, it does not say that, all things considered, all killings of persons are equally morally wrong, despite appearances. McMahan explains this more carefully: “Despite my choice of label, the Equal Wrongness Thesis does not imply that the wrongness of killing persons never varies. It is compatible with that thesis to recognize that the wrongness of killing can vary in ways that are consistent with the fundamental moral equality of persons” ( 2002 , 235). He goes on to describe a number of ways in which the wrongness of killing can vary: more people killed, worse motivation, intention rather than foresight, and so on. The crucial point of equality is, as I wrote above, that it does not vary according to the worth of the victim (since all victims are equally valuable) or the worth of the victim’s life (since this is irrelevant, on this account).

McMahan defends the respect account of the wrongness of killing at greater length, but let me add some additional motivations for this thesis:

First, as described, it is an account that best fits our intuitions about the fundamental moral equality of human beings, and the connection between the equality of human beings and their most basic rights.

Second, it explains why the right to life is inviolable, as opposed to being potentially expendable, depending on the potential benefits. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 31 says that the right to life is not violable, even in time of public emergency threatening the life of the nation, for example. This, of course, fits with our intuitions regarding the impermissibility of killing, even if it were possible to save more lives (as with the innocent healthy person who is killed to save five lives with organ transplants). 32 Those of us who are opposed to capital punishment and torture (among other things) may find the generation of inviolable rights on the basis of respect especially intuitive as well. It connects these rights in a plausible way with the absolute or infinite worth of the individual.

Zylberman (2016) has a helpful discussion of the concept of human dignity and its connection to these rights. Zylberman first quotes Kant: “In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is raised above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity” ( Zylberman, 2016 , 204).

Zylberman then describes some implications of this view: in particular, that human dignity can never be traded away, even for something else with dignity, and hence results in an absolute prohibition on certain kinds of conduct, such as torture. This means it can also explain the equal wrongness of killing. The respect account can plausibly claim that human life is priceless, or infinitely valuable, and hence that all human beings are equally valuable. If the wrongness of killing is tied to their value, it can explain the equal wrongness of killing.

Third, it takes seriously our special status as persons rather than just sentient beings, connecting this in a plausible way to our inviolable right to life.

Fourth, it has strong historical precedent (and therefore the intuitive support from the “democracy of the dead,” as Chesterton put it): the U.S. Declaration of Independence ties together our equality and the unalienable right to life, 33 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in its opening line, reminds us that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Article 7 gives: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Arguably, liberal democracy is founded on a concept like respect, along with its moral implications. As we saw earlier, the Christian tradition on which our conception of rights and equality is historically grounded ( Spencer, 2016 ; Holland, 2019 ) has generally emphasized the “sacredness”—the inviolability due to respect—of human life. 34

Fifth, it makes a great deal of sense to many wrong actions which do not seem to harm anyone in a way that is appreciable to the victim. There are many things which are wrong but from which no one necessarily consciously suffers as a result. 35 For example, desecrating someone’s grave, deliberately contradicting or desecrating your loving, caring mother’s dying wish, privately laughing at another’s misfortune, cheating on one’s partner, secretly putting pork in a devout Muslim’s meal, watching child pornography, cannibalism, necrophilia, consenting to sell oneself into slavery, and so on. 36 That these wrongs disrespect the victim rather than “harming” them seems the best explanation of their wrongness. 37

Sixth, it explains our intuitions about particularly aggravated killings: for example, racially motivated or particularly degrading killings.

Finally, it fits very naturally with the pro-life view, which in its standard form says that the right to life is inviolable. Since the allegation is that the pro-life view has an inconsistency, this is a helpful virtue for the pro-lifer.

VIII. DIFFERING NORMS FOR KILLING AND LETTING DIE

This account of killing has a lot to commend it. Now how does it affect our central question? In this next section, I suggest that as a result of this account of the wrongness of killing, there are different norms for killing and letting die.

Here, I largely set aside the question of the extent to which intention to harm is important. To go into the literature on intention would take us too far afield, but it is certainly possible that the intention to harm is part of what makes killing necessarily disrespectful. In that sense, intention may well be a substantial part of my argument here. If so, my argument would neatly integrate and explain why intention is so important to the distinction. If not, my argument still works.

All I add here, therefore, is to say that it is deeply intuitive that intention makes an enormous difference to the morality of an action. To take a very simple example: it is permissible to perform actions foreseeing the death of civilians in wartime, so long as the action taken fulfills certain other strict criteria. By contrast, intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. Foreseeing the death of a person when adjusting a policy to save five others is OK. By contrast, killing someone to use their organs for transplants is not. Examples could be multiplied endlessly, but the intuition is strong. Since, as we see, the intention in performing an abortion and in allowing a miscarriage is (usually) very different, there is an obvious reason to treat them discrepantly. What I propose is that the respect theory of the wrongness of killing may channel the role of intuition in these cases—intentionally killing a fetus is inherently disrespectful, while foreseeing the death of the fetus is not necessarily disrespectful.

The argument at this point is, again, very simple. Killing is inherently disrespectful—a violation of human dignity. It is impossible to (intentionally) kill in a way that respects the value of the victim’s life, and hence there is an absolute prohibition on it. 38 Now failing to save is not inherently or necessarily disrespectful. There are many reasons why one might fail to save someone that do not necessarily represent a failure of respect for that individual. 39 Hence, there is no absolute prohibition on failing to save. Saving someone from natural death often is a duty for various reasons—indeed, sometimes the failure to do so is a failure of respect. But, it is not necessarily so. Hence, different norms apply to each: killing is always wrong, for the reason that it is necessarily a failure of respect. Failing to save may or may not be wrong, depending on the details of the individual case.

At this point, we can respond to an objection that has been raised by a number of writers. Simkulet, for example, argues that once scenarios involving killing and letting die are made similar in every other respect, there is no moral difference between the two. In response, note that even if true , this does nothing to damage my argument. For one of the relevant factors that need to be made similar for the two scenarios to be comparable is a failure of respect . Killing, I have said, necessarily involves this. Failing to save only contingently does so. Where failing to save does constitute the same kind of failure of respect, it may well be just as wrong as killing. 40 But, in cases where failing to save is not borne out of a failure of respect, it is not necessarily as wrong. This result is all that is needed for my overall argument to succeed. Where failing to save is not a failure of respect, clearly there are other norms that govern such situations—and these norms may be significantly different from the norms governing killing. 41

Let us motivate the idea that the respect account generates differing norms a little more. First, I highlighted earlier how many of the bad features of abortion emphasized by pro-lifers are bad specifically because they are degrading , or because they disrupt a respectable part of the natural order (such as the love between members of a family). This adds more weight to the idea that killing (particularly in abortion) involves a lack of respect, while spontaneous abortion lacks those same features.

Second, the general reason we fail to save people is clearly not a lack of respect; it is a lack of resources. Indeed, it is impossible to save everyone. This creates a clear asymmetry with killing: it is entirely possible never intentionally to kill anyone, yet it is completely impossible to save everyone. If it is impossible to save everyone, then it is wildly implausible to claim that failing to save someone necessarily involves a failure of respect.

Third, the infinite value of human life easily translates into a principle on killing: do not kill. What is the equivalent principle of saving life? Because it is not possible to save everyone, it is difficult to see what this could be. Certainly, it is difficult to see what plausible principle this could involve. Put another way: it is possible for us to achieve infinite utility in the realm of killing: simply by not killing at all. But, it is harder to understand what infinite utility would look like when it comes to saving lives.

Fourth, further intuition supports different norms for the two cases. We would potentially kill in order to prevent a murder or genocide. This seems to be broadly the only situation killing would gain widespread support. 42 However, we would not at all countenance the thought of killing one person to save more people from another disease (as in the transplant case). This suggests that there are different norms for the two situations.

Fifth, it is almost universally agreed that killing and letting die are morally different. This is clear in Anglo-American law and international law, among many other (perhaps all) jurisprudential systems. Hence, there are many reasons to think that the norms governing each situation are distinct.

What norms could govern failing to save? I do not aim to set out a comprehensive algorithm: just to list some of the possibilities and their plausibility. First, of course, a failure to save can be a failure of respect, which would make that failure prohibited. Aside from this, we could be guided by many considerations:

• How much such persons might be able to contribute to the rest of society (e.g., if they have the cure for cancer).
• How many expected years of life that person has remaining.
• How many vulnerable people that person has depending on them (including if they are pregnant).
• Whether that person belongs to a protected class of human beings disproportionately affected by systemic injustice.
• How likely the person is to survive the intervention.
• Prudential unity considerations (i.e., the time-relative interest account).
• Whether that person would prefer to live or die.
• Other competing goods—not just saving lives, but other cultural goods and other sources of human flourishing, and the prevention of harm and/or misery.
• The proximity of the person.
• Special relationships we might have with the person.
• The circumstances and cause of death: including whether the person is being killed by another person or by natural disease, and the reason for their being killed (if homicide).

Most of us already believe that at least some of these are relevant to whether we have a duty to save someone’s life, and if so, which lives we should save (given limited resources). So, our intuitions already support this sort of reasoning— even though most of us agree that humans are equal and have equal rights. This supports the idea that an equal right to life is primarily a negative right, as described. Most people endorse an account like this: killing is equally wrong across all persons, but failing to save can be right or wrong depending on a wide variety of factors. As some examples of the above: most people agree that you should save someone who has a cure for cancer over someone who does not; the idea of spending limited resources to preserve as many years of life as possible (hence discriminating between persons) is not only widely accepted but built into the foundations of health economics and resource distribution; most people think you have a duty to save your child over someone else’s child, and so on.

We even tacitly grant that competing goods that can justify not saving someone’s life include goods that do not save the life of another person. Almost every country in the world, and almost every person in the developed world, at least, spends a large amount of money or other resources on things that do not save lives, when they could have contributed toward saving a life. 43 At the same time, we would still all grant that killing people in the developing world to make money for those same goods is clearly morally monstrous.

Almost everyone endorses policies that result in more deaths because they think that when it comes to saving lives, this can be weighed against other competing goods. As an example related to abortion: most people support delayed childbearing in order to improve equality between men and women, even though the subsequent delayed childbearing leads to increased maternal mortality ( Koch, 2012 ). 44

Likewise, it is uncontroversial that a central part of medicine is not only the preservation of life but also the alleviation of misery. Those in health care realize they could save more lives by shifting all the money from misery prevention into life preservation; almost no one thinks we should do so.

All that is needed for my argument is the theoretical result that some of these considerations can outweigh numbers alone. If it is permissible to save one young child over two 90-year-olds with terminal illnesses, then we have granted that equality and the equal wrongness of killing do not mean that we cannot discriminate on any other basis when it comes to saving lives. And, that is enough to generate the possibility that preventing abortion or curing cancer ought to be a bigger priority than preventing miscarriages. If it may be permissible to stop an ethnic genocide against 10,000 people over a disease killing 10,001, the principle is proven.

To use an example that may be more (though far from entirely) analogous to abortion, suppose a disease has been unleashed, and you can save only:

• 1) A group of ten young girls, deeply integrated into their local communities, whose death would be extremely painful and degrading, and would lead to much misery for both the victims and perennially for their families.
• 2) A disparate collection of eleven hermits with no social contact at all, who would be missed by no one, who are in comas, and who would die quickly and painlessly.

I am not going to adjudicate in this scenario; I do not need to. All I need is to show that the answer is not obvious , even for those of us completely committed to human equality. We would all be agreed that killing the hermits is absolutely wrong, no matter the benefit. But, we might reasonably think that allowing a greater number of hermits to die to save the tightly bonded community is permissible. And that is enough to show that numbers are not the only consideration when it comes to saving lives.

We have, then, a plausible theoretical explanation for why different norms governing the different situations apply. We also have a wide range of intuitions regarding practices mostly already adopted, that suggest we can discriminate when it comes to saving lives. We also firmly believe that this is compatible with our deep commitment to human equality. The view that different norms govern killing and letting die appears to have robust justification.

We are now in a position to respond to Ord’s pre-emption of this strategy. Ord says that the difference between killing and letting die does not matter; he can sidestep this question by directly comparing miscarriage to other natural conditions leading to many deaths, such as cancer. As we can now see, this move does not work. Not only does the difference between killing and letting die justify saving fewer lives from killing than from natural causes, a close examination of the wrongness of killing and the wrongness of failing to save reveals very different norms governing each case. Saving lives involves asking many questions other than simply: “how many lives?” Indeed, there are compelling arguments to show that sometimes saving fewer lives is reasonable. With this established in principle, it is not clear what argument Ord can make. He has to show not only that spontaneous abortion kills a large number of people, but that no reasonable overall assessment could justify spending more on other causes. That argument looks to be very difficult to make.

Essentially, there are two different questions. Why prioritize the prevention of abortion over the prevention of miscarriage? For all the reasons I have given throughout this paper. Ord suggests there is a second question: why prioritize the prevention of cancer, coronavirus, and so on, over the prevention of miscarriage? The answer is because the norms for killing and saving are different, and the norms for saving do not require treating every life saved as equivalent, nor do they require treating every life saved as being of overriding importance to other social concerns (such as the prevention of misery, the preservation of community, and so on). We are able to preserve the equality of human beings and the equal wrongness of killing, at the same time as triaging when it comes to saving lives on the basis of a wide range of other considerations.

We can also now respond to Simkulet’s (2019) allegation that pro-life responses appealing to discriminating factors between lives can justify abortion. This would perhaps be the case if abortion were merely a failure to save. However, since abortion is (at least typically) killing, 45 Simkulet’s response fails.

It is worth briefly responding to the anticipated objection that when it comes to pro-life lobbying, all work is rescuing, rather than refraining from killing. Pro-lifers are not just refraining from killing; they are rescuing people, even if from killing rather than from disease or misfortune. This is true, and it is important: after all, it follows that pro-lifers cannot save everyone from being killed, and for the reasons explained here they therefore have no infinitely strong obligation (as they do against murder) to try and save children from abortion. Failing to advocate against abortion is not necessarily a failure of respect (though it can be). However, this consideration does not impugn my argument. I have not argued that pro-lifers must advocate against abortion at the expense of anything else or that failing to do so necessarily results from a lack of respect tantamount to killing. Rather, I have claimed and argued that the reasons for saving lives from abortion are significantly stronger than the reasons for saving lives from miscarriage, and hence can justify a greater focus on the former. I make no argument here for how strong those reasons are in absolute terms, and whether they suffice to make abortion a pre-eminent social and political priority. 46

All that is needed for my argument to work, therefore, are the following claims:

• 1) The norms for killing and letting die are distinct.
• 2) Norms other than the equality and inviolability of persons (and numbers) are applicable in the case of letting die.
• 3) Some of these norms in the case of letting die can outweigh numerical considerations.

I submit that each of these is not only plausible, but widely believed. In this paper, I have sought to elucidate some of the theoretical and intuitive justification behind them. It might be that Ord, Berg, and Simkulet believe that pro-life efforts are still disproportionate when all these norms are taken into account: but that requires more than just a statement of the numbers involved. It takes even more to show that the typical pro-lifer’s priorities are unjustifiable . I suspect that this cannot be shown.

IX. IMPLICATIONS

As I have shown, this account of the wrongness of killing has significant implications for our moral interpretation of killing and failing to rescue, and hence for our prioritization of preventing killing and preventing natural death. The consequences of this are many, and not only limited to the abortion debate. Within the abortion debate, it gives the pro-lifer powerful resources for explaining why they prioritize the prevention of abortion over the prevention of miscarriage. It could also give powerful resources for explaining why a pro-lifer might save a young child over multiple frozen embryos in a “burning building” scenario. 47 It could help to explain part of the reason killing is much more morally serious than letting die, and hence, it could reinforce a significant disanalogy between abortion and Thomson’s violinist scenario. 48 It could explain the wrongness of abortion in cases of fatal fetal anomaly, where the child is not expected to enjoy significant positive conscious experience for a long period of time, and perhaps also the wrongness of euthanasia in general. Finally, it could explain the wrongness of early abortion, which many find counterintuitive. As we have seen, the respect account explains the wrongness of certain actions whose victim is never cognisant of the action or its consequences (such as using child pornography). If actions can be seriously wrong—as a violation of respect—without the victim ever experiencing that harm, then perhaps the primary objection to the plausibility of the pro-life view is dispatched, namely, that it is not plausible that a completely unconscious being is worthy of serious moral consideration.

More generally, this account of the wrongness of killing could be part of the reason why we almost universally treat killing as more serious than letting die and take more measures to rescue people from killing than from natural disease or misfortune . Since this distinction is a central element of much Anglo-American (and other) jurisprudence, it has considerable importance. The distinction between killing versus letting die is also, of course, relevant for all sorts of ethical debates, and does not need to be explained in detail here. The account can also assist us in prioritizing the prevention of deaths by killing and by natural causes. The distinction between killing and letting die remains respectable.

1 This appears to have been first published by Annas (1989) , who cites Leonard Glantz as the inspiration.

2 Berg and Ord seem to suggest this; Simkulet, by contrast, insists that pro-lifers must be unaware or simply morally monstrous.

3 Condic (2011) offers a fuller discussion.

4 See also Miller (2021) .

5 Around 9,000,000 are reported each year in China alone, for example—though for obvious reasons China is likely to have a higher abortion rate than average. See Johnston (2020) .

6 As opposed to “euploidy,” where the normal number of chromosomes is present.

7 These proportions may differ by country, depending on the extent to which malnutrition and poorer control of chronic conditions and infections may cause miscarriage. So it may be that—given that these estimates come largely from the developed world—the proportion due to aneuploidy globally is actually less than for induced abortion.

8 Even this is a bit simplistic: dying with a chromosomal anomaly does not mean dying from the anomaly. After all, some people with Turner Syndrome live long lives: it by no means entails intrauterine death.

9 At least, on the pro-life view. That they are moral equals is highly debatable on the common alternative view that our moral worth is grounded in our psychological capacities. See Miller (Forthcoming) .

10 I specify human organisms since it is even possible that genetic changes may be so radical as to constitute a separate species—after all, the genetic makeup of different species is largely quite similar. That said, I think it is plausible that the overwhelming majority of cases in question are human, and in many cases constitute organisms.

11 I say “necessarily,” because it may be wrong in some cases: if the intention is to cause suffering, for example. But, if there is a valid reason—for example, wanting to delay childbearing until a point that having a disabled child is very likely but not intended—then it is not inherently wrong.

12 Incidentally, it is also a reason pro-lifers have no significant duty to take particular measures to avoid genetic anomalies recommended by some authors, such as avoiding the rhythm method (which may—speculatively—lead to older and more genetically vulnerable gametes conceiving) or using sperm sorting. Bovens (2006) makes the former argument. Likewise, changing the timing of pregnancy is probably unhelpful from the perspective of preventing deaths, since changing the timing of pregnancy will likely result in a different child.

13 See the figure cited for genetics research here, and Colgrove’s (2021) estimate for money spent on fertility research.

14 Colgrove (2021) makes similar points, while Marino (2008) presents a summary of current research.

15 “The notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational” ( Supreme Court of the United States, Gonzales v. Carhart , 550 U.S. 124 (2007) , Ginsburg, J., dissenting, 24).

16 See also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23.

17 See UDHR, Article 6; ICCPR, Article 16.

18 Colgrove (2021) makes this point independently.

19 One might also think that the money spent lobbying for abortion justifies higher spending on abortion insofar as more money is needed to create a “level playing field.” Intuitively, the more money invested in the transatlantic slave trade, the greater the necessity to spend money and resources fighting against it.

20 Advocates of the transatlantic slave trade claimed that keeping the trade legal was the best way to keep it “safe”—banning it would only lead to poorer conditions on the now unregulated ships. See Hague (2008) .

21 The same applies from the fifth point, namely, that more resources are needed to create a level playing field regardless of whether the political impetus behind abortion makes it more degrading.

22 A reviewer points out that apathy toward miscarriage is also a moral wrong and could be seen the same way. But the pro-lifer under attack by Ord et al. need not be apathetic to miscarriage. They could think miscarriage is a bad thing and spend some resources trying to prevent it, while spending more opposing abortion.

23 For example, Christensen (2018) and subsequent correspondence.

24 A baby with anencephaly is not able to experience much value—she cannot experience higher pleasures than many animals, and experiences them for a much shorter time. And yet pro-lifers generally consider abortion of anencephalic children to be a very morally serious violation of their right to life, even if much more understandable and exculpable than abortion for, say, career reasons.

25 In the view of many pro-lifers, which is the relevant view in this case.

26 By which I mean, goods that are able to be apprehended and appreciated by the subject.

27 McMahan notes that the Harm-Based Account (and presumably the Time-Relative Interest Account by implication) is ordinarily associated with the denial of a moral distinction between killing and letting die—but it may be that other accounts of the wrongness of killing do permit such a distinction.

28 The latter clause is important—McMahan does not deny that some killings can be more or less wrong, but that any variation must depend on factors other than the value of the victim or her life—for example, number of killings, motivation, intention, and so on.

29 We explicate exactly what this could mean shortly.

30 This fits neatly with the conception of human dignity as a “rank” that requires respect—this rank could explain the equal wrongness of killing, among other things. Zylberman (2016) has a helpful summary of the issues raised here.

31 The legal codification of the civil and political rights declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

32 McMahan writes that it is “permissible to sacrifice an animal for the greater benefit of other animals or persons … In the case of persons, however, we believe that it is wrong to kill one person as a means of preventing the killing of a greater number of others” ( 2002 , 246–7).

33 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” In his most famous speech during the Civil War to end slavery, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln relies heavily on this theme.

34 The account also fits neatly with Kant’s account of human dignity and worth.

35 Clearly, it is possible (in many cases, likely) that someone is consciously harmed by these actions—but this is not necessarily so.

36 Rodger, Blackshaw, and Miller (2018) offer some further examples in the context of the beginning of life.

37 Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind is a good introduction to a kind of common sense, pluralist morality that admits questions of sacredness and respect even in the absence of harm; see Part II in particular. Haidt shows how these notions are endemic to our thinking whether or not we are religious—ideas of respect and sacredness are a part of everyday moral thought, even if increasingly by the former label.

38 A reviewer points out that assisted suicide or euthanasia might be thought compatible with respect. This helpfully demonstrates how the respect account of the wrongness of killing is precisely that to which pro-lifers subscribe: they typically believe that killing oneself or another person is wrong even when solicited. All I need is for this theory to be plausible on the pro-life view. Even if one supposes that suicide and euthanasia are not necessarily disrespectful, the premise could easily be modified: killing someone without their consent is necessarily a failure of respect.

39 The most obvious is that doing so is metaphysically impossible, which—as I have argued—may be the case for many miscarriages.

40 Just as, for example, intending to kill may be as serious as killing, even if one fails.

41 It goes without saying that pro-lifers do not typically fail to prevent miscarriages deliberately, or out of a lack of respect, but out of a lack of resources.

42 There are a few fringe cases, such as in Re A (conjoined twins) , which do not make a significant difference to this argument.

43 This is not to say that I condone the widespread greed that also characterizes many people in the developed world. I do think that we have a duty to give much more to save lives in the developing world than we currently give; I just do not think that duty necessarily overrides any duty or permission to spend resources on goods that do not save lives.

44 Again, of course, by contrast, killing a woman of the same age to promote equality of women is not permissible.

45 As Greasley (2017) has compellingly argued.

46 For full transparency, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe a relatively compelling argument can be given for this as well.

47 In short, because the norms on saving lives are governed by many factors other than human equality: and these other factors are present in such cases. This does not impugn the ultimate equality between the embryos and the child.

48 Greasley offers a comprehensive analysis of the significance of this distinction—while letting die is frequently permitted in many jurisdictions, killing has far more stringent restrictions. Hence, since abortion appears to be killing rather than letting die, the restrictions on it are far more stringent than they would be if abortion were merely a failure to rescue, as Thomson’s violinist experiment might imply.

• Alvaré, H. M. 2011. Abortion, sexual markets and the law. In Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments , ed. Napier S., 255–79. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Annas, G. J. 1989. At law: A French homunculus in a Tennessee court . Hastings Center Report 19 ( 6 ):20–2. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berg, A. 2017. Abortion and miscarriage . Philosophical Studies 174 ( 5 ):1217–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blackshaw, B. P. and Rodger D.. . 2019. The problem of spontaneous abortion: Is the pro-life position morally monstrous? The New Bioethics 25 ( 2 ):103–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bovens, L. 2006. The rhythm method and embryonic death . Journal of Medical Ethics 32 ( 6 ):355–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• British Pregnancy Advisory Service. 2020. The inconceivable grief of baby loss is, unfortunately, something many individuals experience, including fertility patients [Post on Instagram] Available: https://www.instagram.com/p/CEJYu6Whpi1/ .
• Christensen, A. 2018. Abortion and deprivation: A reply to Marquis . Journal of Medical Ethics 45 ( 1 ):22–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colgrove, N. 2021. Miscarriage is not a cause of death: A response to Berg’s “abortion and miscarriage” . Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 ( 4 ):394–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colley, E., Hamilton S., Smith P., Morgan N. V., Coomarasamy A. and Allen S.. . 2019. Potential genetic causes of miscarriage in euploid pregnancies: A systematic review . Human Reproduction Update 25 ( 4 ):452–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Condic, M. L. 2011. A biological definition of the human embryo. In Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments , ed. Napier S., 211–35. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham, R. M., Walton M. A., and Carter P. M.. . 2018. The major causes of death in children and adolescents in the United States . New England Journal of Medicine 379 ( 25 ):2468–75. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department of Health and Social Care. 2020. Abortion statistics 2019: Data tables [On-line]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2019 (accessed October 6, 2020).
• Derbyshire, S. W. G., and Bockmann J. C.. . 2020. Reconsidering fetal pain . Journal of Medical Ethics 46 ( 1 ):3–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fergusson, D. M., Horwood L. J., and Boden J. M.. . 2013. Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence . Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 47 ( 9 ):819–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Friberg-Fernros, H. 2019. Defending the two tragedies argument: A response to Simkulet . Journal of Medical Ethics 45 ( 6 ):417–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallup. 2020. Abortion. Available: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Greasley, K. 2017. Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality and Law . Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttmacher Institute. 2019. Induced abortion in the United States [On-line]. Available: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/fb_induced_abortion.pdf (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Hague, W. 2008. William Wilberforce: The Life of the Great Anti-Slave Trade Campaigner . London, United Kingdom: Harper Perennial. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haskell, M. 1992. Dilation and extraction for late second trimester abortion . Presentation at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992.
• Hassold, T., Chen N., Funkhouser J., Jooss T., Manuel B., Matsuura J., Matsuyama A., Wilson C., Yamane, J. A. and Jacobs P. A.. . 1980. A cytogenetic study of 1000 spontaneous abortions . Annals of Human Genetics 44 ( 2 ):151–78. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holland, T. 2019. Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind . London, United Kingdom: Little, Brown. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jarvis, G. E. 2017. Early embryo mortality in natural human reproduction: What the data say [version 2] . F1000Research 5 :2765. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston, W. R. 2007. Data on “partial-birth” abortion in the United States [On-line]. Available: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/pba.html (accessed February 6, 2023).
• ———. 2020. Historical abortion statistics, PR China [On-line]. Available: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-prchina.html (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Karalis, E., Ulander V. M., Tapper A. M., and Gissler M.. . 2017. Decreasing mortality during pregnancy and for a year after while mortality after termination of pregnancy remains high: A population-based register study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 2001-2012 . British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 124 ( 7 ):1115–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koch, E. 2012. Women’s education level, maternal health facilities, abortion legislation and maternal deaths: A natural experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007 . PLoS One 7 ( 5 ):e36613. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koch, E., Aracena P., Gatica S., Bravo M., Huerta-Zepeda, A. and Calhoun B. C.. . 2012. Fundamental discrepancies in abortion estimates and abortion-related mortality: A reevaluation of recent studies in Mexico with special reference to the International Classification of Diseases . International Journal of Women’s Health 4 :613–23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koch, E., Bravo M., Gatica S., Stecher J. F., Aracena P., Valenzuela S. and Ahlers I.. . 2012. Sobrestimación del aborto inducido en Colombia y otros países latinoamericanos . Ginecologia y Obstetricia de Mexico 80 ( 5 ):360–72. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lacantius. Divine institutes. Trans. W. Fletcher. Rev. and ed. K. Knight. New Advent [On-line]. Available: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07011.htm (accessed March 31, 2023). [ Google Scholar ]
• Marino, T. A. 2008. Natural embryo loss—A missed opportunity . American Journal of Bioethics 8 ( 7 ):25–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marquis, D. 1989. Why abortion is immoral . Journal of Philosophy 86 ( 4 ):183–202. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMahan, J. 2002. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life . Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, C. 2021. Maternal mortality from induced abortion in Malawi: What does the latest evidence suggest? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 :10506. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ———. Forthcoming. Human equality arguments against abortion . Journal of Medical Ethics . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller, C., and Pruss A.. . 2017. Human organisms begin to exist at fertilization . Bioethics 31 ( 7 ):534–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NaPro Technology. 2020. References [On-line]. Available: https://www.naprotechnology.com/references.htm (accessed February 6, 2023).
• New York Times. 1997. An abortion rights advocate says he lied about procedure [On-line]. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/26/us/an-abortion-rights-advocate-says-he-lied-about-procedure.html (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Ord, T. 2008. The scourge: Moral implications of natural embryo loss . American Journal of Bioethics 8 ( 7 ):12–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Our World in Data. 2020. Number of births and deaths per year, World, 1950 to 2099 [On-line]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/births-and-deaths-projected-to-2100 (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Pohlhaus, J. R., and Cook-Deegan R. M.. . 2008. Genomics research: World survey of public funding . BMC Genomics 9 :472. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popinchalk, A., and Sedgh G.. . 2019. Trends in the method and gestational age of abortion in high-income countries . BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health 45 ( 2 ):95–103. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodger, D., Blackshaw B. P. and Miller C.. . 2018. Beyond infanticide: How psychological accounts of persons can justify harming infants . The New Bioethics 24 ( 2 ):106–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sedgh, G., Bearak J., Singh S., Bankole A., Popinchalk A., Ganatra B., Rossier C., . et al. 2016. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: Global, regional, and subregional levels and trends . The Lancet 388 ( 10041 ):258–67. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simkulet, W. 2017. Cursed lamp: The problem of spontaneous abortion . Journal of Medical Ethics 43 ( 11 ):784–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• ———. 2019. The two tragedies argument . Journal of Medical Ethics 45 ( 5 ):304–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer, N. 2016. The Evolution of the West: How Christianity Has Shaped Our Values . London, United Kingdom: SPCK. [ Google Scholar ]
• Supreme Court of the United States. 2007. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124.
• The Economist . 2019. The fertility business is booming [On-line]. Available: https://www.economist.com/business/2019/08/08/the-fertility-business-is-booming (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Warren, E. 2019. Comments at Democratic presidential primary debate, June 26, 2019 [On-line]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB3z7XKX-cE (accessed February 6, 2023).
• Zylberman, A. 2016. Human dignity . Philosophy Compass 11 ( 4 ):201–10. [ Google Scholar ]

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
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: The Relationship Between State Abortion Policy and Child Well-Being in the United States

Affiliation.

• 1 a Department of Economics, California State University, Long Beach , Long Beach , California , USA.
• PMID: 24245932
• DOI: 10.1080/07399332.2013.841699

In the United States, pro-choice supporters contend that the desire of pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus ends at birth and that thereafter they ignore the health and well-being of infants and children. This study examines the question of whether infants and children fare better in U.S. states that have the most restrictive abortion laws. Eighteen indicators of infant/child health, family, economic, and educational status are analyzed. The empirical evidence finds that states with the most antiabortion policies are also the same states that have significantly lower indicators of infant/child well-being. This supports the contention by pro-choice supporters that efforts by pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus end at birth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The consequences of abortion legislation. Braude M. Braude M. Women Ther. 1983 Summer-Fall;2(2-3):81-90. doi: 10.1300/J015v02n02_08. Women Ther. 1983. PMID: 12340335
• Reproductive rights on firmer ground with prochoice White House, Congress. Special report -- abortion and the 1992 elections. [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst. 1992 Nov 12;(18):1-2. Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst. 1992. PMID: 12285933
• Clinton repeals antiabortion policies as activists map out new strategies. [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst. 1993 Feb 9;(3):1-2. Wash Memo Alan Guttmacher Inst. 1993. PMID: 12286087
• Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis. Peterfy A. Peterfy A. J Leg Med. 1995 Dec;16(4):607-36. doi: 10.1080/01947649509510995. J Leg Med. 1995. PMID: 8568420 Review.
• AIDS and the future of reproductive freedom. Bayer R. Bayer R. Milbank Q. 1990;68(Suppl. 2):179-204. Milbank Q. 1990. PMID: 11653914 Review.
• Crossroads of choice: The changing terrain of US abortion laws. Hall BE, Khandelwal M. Hall BE, et al. Obstet Med. 2024 Mar;17(1):3-4. doi: 10.1177/1753495X241236225. Epub 2024 Apr 22. Obstet Med. 2024. PMID: 38660325 No abstract available.
• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of India: Treading the Path between Practical and Ethical Reproductive Justice. Pai SN, Chandra KS. Pai SN, et al. Indian J Community Med. 2023 Jul-Aug;48(4):510-513. doi: 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_540_22. Epub 2023 Jul 14. Indian J Community Med. 2023. PMID: 37662131 Free PMC article.
• Attitudes toward abortion, social welfare programs, and gender roles in the U.S. and South Africa. Mosley EA, Anderson BA, Harris LH, Fleming PJ, Schulz AJ. Mosley EA, et al. Crit Public Health. 2020;30(4):441-456. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2019.1601683. Epub 2019 Apr 19. Crit Public Health. 2020. PMID: 35368244 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Taylor & Francis

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations
• MedlinePlus Consumer Health Information
• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

New Republican platform makes one thing clear: We've dropped the anti-abortion effort

Republicans have made it clear they will follow trump anywhere, even if it's to ignore the anti-abortion movement..

The Republican Party adopted on Monday a new party platform leading up to the 2024 national convention . 

The platform reads as you would expect a Trumped-up party platform would, with all-caps promises to “SEAL THE BORDER,” “PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE,” and to “UNITE OUR COUNTRY BY BRINGING IT TO NEW AND RECORD LEVELS OF SUCCESS.”

I wouldn't be surprised if former President Donald Trump wrote these talking points himself, because the GOP has seemingly fully given in to Trumpism as the leading party platform. 

That’s bad news for any movement that takes itself seriously, particularly those with an actual mission that impacts the lives of Americans. Sadly, the GOP following Trump’s lead on abortion is a major departure from the direction anti-abortion activists have steered the party in over the past several decades. 

As a young voter who is pro-life, I came into conservatism at the peak of the anti-abortion movement's success, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 while I was in college. I'm saddened that it appears the party will not continue down that path into my adulthood.

Republican platform abandons those of us who are pro-life

The single mention of abortion in the official GOP platform reads, " We will oppose Late Term Abortion ."

Compare that with the Republican platform from 2016 , the last year the GOP produced an official platform, and the difference is stark. The term “abortion” is mentioned 35 times throughout the text, discussing varying degrees of federal bans that Republicans would support. 

Before Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Republicans had it easy. They could promise far-reaching abortion bans once Roe was overturned and not deal with the political consequences. It was a good topic to score harmless points on.

However, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, support for abortion rights has ticked up and the issue has become the biggest electoral struggle the GOP has faced. In the 2022 midterm elections, 24% of voters ‒ with the share of Democrats nearly tripling that of Republicans ‒ listed abortion as the single biggest factor in their vote , and 38% said it heavily influenced their decision to vote in the election. 

Nikki Haley is the answer: Do Republicans realize Trump is the old guy if Biden drops out? Haley would fix that.

The flurry of ballot measures that enshrined abortion rights at the state level following the decision also didn’t bode well for the GOP. In these states, Democratic women are significantly more likely to vote in elections where abortion is on the ballot, and Republican women are conversely slightly less likely to vote. 

I wish I could say I was surprised, but the modern GOP shifts its positions wherever the voters want them to. With its softening on the issue of abortion, the Republican Party proves there is no issue where it will hold the line.

Abortion is political kryptonite for the GOP. It shouldn't matter.

Although I understand the electoral difficulty of selling the message of protecting life, I am saddened that the GOP has been so quick to abandon the most important civil rights issue of my generation.

SCOTUS doing its job: Have you realized the Supreme Court is the only part of our government working?

Attaching the party to Trump's whims is a recipe for disaster, especially when his position changes with the wind. If the GOP of old didn't die under Trump's first presidency, the transformations the party is undergoing under his leadership this time will certainly lead to the death of the Republican Party we knew.

The anti-abortion movement for decades was a pillar of the Republican Party's base, and the GOP could reliably bank on their votes regardless of the candidate purely because of their ability to nominate conservative justices with the jurisprudence required to overturn Roe.

Rather than taking on the admittedly daunting task of changing hearts and minds on the issue, the GOP has thrown the anti-abortion movement by the wayside the moment it became politically inconvenient to stand with us. 

The promise of Roe v. Wade one day being overturned produced a stalwart voting bloc of religious voters loyal to the Republican Party. This population viewed the overturning of Roe as an important victory in a long road to equal protection of life rather than the end point the GOP has seemingly deemed it. 

Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store .

Former Vice President Mike Pence, an unwavering leader of the pro-life movement, in a statement encouraged “delegates attending next week’s Republican Convention to restore language to our party’s platform recognizing the sanctity of human life and affirming that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

I agree with Pence’s calls, but I'm skeptical that any such change will come. The Republican Party's kismet lies wherever Trump guides it, and Trump’s stance on abortion goes wherever it gets him the most votes. 

Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page , on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter .

The SBA Pro-Life America Family

• Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America
• Women Speak Out PAC
• Candidate Fund
• Pro-Life Women’s Caucus
• Lozier Institute
• Election Transparency Initiative
• Supreme Court: Abortion Drugs
• Supreme Court: Dobbs
• Taxpayer Funding
• Big Tech’s Censorship
• Biden Admin Extremism
• 2022 Campaign for Life Gala
• 2019 Gala feat. Nikki Haley
• 2018 Gala feat. President Donald J. Trump
• 2017 Gala feat. VP Mike Pence
• 2016 Gala feat. Sen. Joni Ernst
• More Events

• Press Releases
• Latest Pro-Life News
• Life-Saving Laws
• Abortion Exposed Podcast

Your Impact

• 2022 Election Report
• 2020 Election Report
• 2018 Election Report
• 2016 Election Report
• 2014 Election Report
• Life On The Ballot
• 2024 Endorsed Candidates
• Become Their Ambassador
• Legacy Giving
• Investment Giving
• We're Hiring!
• Get in Touch

Donate By Phone

Donate by mail.

SBA Statement on GOP Platform

For Immediate Release: July 8, 2024 Contact: [email protected] | View Newsroom

Washington, D.C. – In response to draft Republican Party platform language approved today, SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser made the following statement:

“It is important that the GOP reaffirmed its commitment to protect unborn life today through the 14th Amendment. Under this amendment, it is Congress that enacts and enforces its provisions. The Republican Party remains strongly pro-life at the national level. “The mission of the pro-life movement, for the next four months, must be to defeat the Biden-Harris extreme abortion agenda. “The platform allows us to provide the winning message to 10 million voters, with four million visits at the door in key battleground states . We are educating voters on the Biden-Harris promotion of abortion for any reason even in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month. We contrast that with protecting the states’ ability to create consensus pro-life laws and provide compassionate options for women and children.”

This election cycle, SBA Pro-Life America and its affiliated entities plan to spend $92 million to protect life across America. The groups’ largest-ever voter contact program includes reaching 10 million voters—with four million visits directly at their homes—across eight key battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is a network of more than one million pro-life Americans nationwide, dedicated to ending abortion by electing national leaders and advocating for laws that save lives, with a special calling to promote pro-life women leaders.

Share this article:

Ways To Give

• Ways to Give

POLITICO Politico Logo

• E&E News
• Search Search

• Live updates
• Trump's expected remarks
• Biden in crisis
• GOP readies new battlefield
• The GOP platform

2024 Elections

Pence slams RNC platform as ‘a profound disappointment’

Pence took aim at Trump’s abortion stance in the statement Tuesday without mentioning him directly.

Mike Pence talks to reporters after speaking at Pray Vote Stand Summit, Friday, Sept. 15, 2023, in Washington. | Jose Luis Magana/AP

By Kierra Frazier

07/09/2024 06:07 PM EDT

Former Vice President Mike Pence slammed the updated Republican National Committee platform Tuesday after GOP leaders abandoned explicitly endorsing a national abortion ban.

“The RNC platform is a profound disappointment to the millions of pro-life Republicans that have always looked to the Republican Party to stand for life,” Pence said in a statement through his advocacy group Advancing American Freedom.

The RNC’s move Monday to adopt a party platform advocating for leaving abortion policy to the states reflects former President Donald Trump’s stance, which has drawn disapproval from anti-abortion groups and his former vice president , who called the policy a “slap in the face.” Pence’s statement Tuesday echoes disapproval from a few delegates and prominent rank-and-file evangelicals who criticized the platform language.

Pence took aim at Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states abortion stance in the statement Tuesday — without mentioning him directly — saying that “the right to life is not only a state issue; it is a moral issue, and our party must continue to speak with moral clarity and compassion.”

Pence has been the most vocal critic of the new platform backed by his former boss and further highlights the falling out between Pence and Trump. Pence has largely kept his distance from Trump since leaving office and declined to endorse the former president in the 2024 race after running an unsuccessful bid of his own.

Last month, Pence revived his call for a nationwide abortion ban while taking an implicit shot at Trump in the process by saying that leaving abortion up to the states is “to tolerate the height of injustice.”

“Now is not the time to surrender any ground in the fight for the right to life,” Pence said Tuesday. “The 2024 platform removed historic pro-life principles that have long been the foundation of the platform.”

The updated platform is set to be finalized by a vote of the full convention body next week.

“I urge delegates attending next week’s Republican Convention to restore language to our party’s platform recognizing the sanctity of human life and affirming that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed,” Pence said.

JD Vance's positions on abortion, the 2020 election, Ukraine and more as Trump's new VP pick

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump has chosen Sen. JD Vance , an Ohio Republican, to be his vice presidential running mate , catapulting the first-term senator into the national spotlight.

Vance was an outspoken Trump critic during the 2016 presidential campaign, the same year Vance was promoting his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.” He has since transformed into one of Trump’s staunchest MAGA allies over 18 months in the Senate, after winning a 2022 race for an open seat in red-trending Ohio.

As a senator, Vance is known for his "America First" skepticism of U.S. involvement in global affairs like the war in Ukraine and his opposition to bipartisan deals on government funding. He has also helped lead a rail safety bill across party lines in the wake of last year's deadly train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio . And Vance has echoed Trump's attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election, which the ex-president has put front and center in his campaign as he continues to promote false claims that it was stolen from him.

Follow for live updates

Unlike some other vice presidential prospects , Vance was not in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, and didn’t vote on certifying President Joe Biden’s victory. In a February 2024 interview on ABC News, Vance endorsed the claim that the 2020 election was problematic and said Congress should have considered competing slates of electors.

“If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there,” Vance said. “That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, [had] a lot of problems in 2020. I think that’s what we should have done.”

Vance’s potential ascension to the vice presidency would deliver a hit to the Republicans who favor more robust U.S. involvement to shape world affairs, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who plans to continue making that a top priority after he steps down from leadership next year.

An opponent of Ukraine aid and abortion rights

Vance has carved out a niche as a vocal opponent of aid to Ukraine, arguing that the U.S. should encourage a deal in which Ukraine cedes land to Russia in order to end the war. He has dismissed concerns that Vladimir Putin would continue his territorial march through Europe if he takes Ukraine. And while he has continued to express support for Israel, he has broadly stood against interventionist U.S. foreign policies.

“There’s still this fundamental inability to deal with the limits of American power in the 21st century,” Vance told NBC News in April, after the Senate passed $95 billion in Ukraine aid, adding that his colleagues — who have “have presided over the declining relative strength of this country” — should instead work to rebuild it.

During his year-and-a-half in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Vance has led the introduction of 57 bills or resolutions, none of which have become law, according to the legislative tracking website Congress.gov. He has co-sponsored many more, just two of which have made it to President Joe Biden's desk. They would have undone Biden's consumer and environmental regulations. Biden vetoed both. Vance has co-sponsored symbolic resolutions that have been adopted by the chamber, including a resolution to celebrate the U.S. flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, and another resolution to honor the life of former first lady Rosalynn Carter.

Vance has been a reliable vote with the right flank of the party against most of Biden’s legislative priorities, judicial nominees and bipartisan government funding deals that have been championed by Republican leaders in both chambers.

Like most Republicans, Vance has consistently voted against Democratic-led legislation to codify abortion rights , restore the protections of Roe v. Wade , establish federal rights to access contraception and create protections for in vitro fertilization . Vance opposed and campaigned against last year’s ballot initiative in Ohio to protect abortion access, calling the measure’s passage “a gut punch.” He has rejected calls for tougher gun laws and clashed with Democrats over the politically thorny issue. And he voted to sink a bipartisan border security deal this year that Trump and many conservatives said didn't go far enough.

Rail safety and Trump 'persecution' allegations

One major bipartisan pursuit that Vance has led, alongside Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is the Railway Safety Act of 2023. It has not yet come up for a vote in the Senate. Vance has also signed onto a bill by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to empower regulators to claw back compensation from top executives of failed banks.

Last month, Vance led a letter threatening to oppose the fast-tracking of even noncontroversial Biden nominees, accusing the administration of waging “persecution of President Donald Trump” through the legal system. (Biden has said he had no involvement in the Justice Department’s cases and there is no evidence that he was behind the prosecutions of Trump.)

The selection of Vance also means that both members of the GOP ticket have helped raise funds for individuals who engaged in political violence on Jan. 6.

On the one-year anniversary of the Capitol attack, Vance — a Yale Law School graduate — falsely claimed that “dozens” of people “who haven’t even been charged with a crime yet” were being held in “D.C. prisons” pre-trial when, in fact, every person who was held in pretrial custody had been charged and had been ordered held by a judge. Vance linked to a fundraiser for Jan. 6 defendants including Jack Wade Whitton, who subsequently confessed to his crime and was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison.

“You’re gonna die tonight!” Whitton admitted yelling at officers, before bragging in a text that he’d “fed” an officer to the mob.

Sahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Advertisement

Supported by

What Is Project 2025, and Why Is Trump Disavowing It?

The Biden campaign has attacked Donald J. Trump’s ties to the conservative policy plan that would amass power in the executive branch, though it is not his official platform.

• Share full article

By Simon J. Levien

Donald J. Trump has gone to great lengths to distance himself from Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals for a future Republican administration that has outraged Democrats. He has claimed he knows nothing about it or the people involved in creating it.

Mr. Trump himself was not behind the project. But some of his allies were.

The document, its origins and the interplay between it and the Trump campaign have made for one of the most hotly debated questions of the 2024 race.

Here is what to know about Project 2025, and who is behind it.

What is Project 2025?

Project 2025 was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and like-minded conservative groups before Mr. Trump officially entered the 2024 race. The Heritage Foundation is a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

The project was intended as a buffet of options for the Trump administration or any other Republican presidency. It’s the latest installment in the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership series, which has compiled conservative policy proposals every few years since 1981. But no previous study has been as sweeping in its recommendations — or as widely discussed.

Kevin Roberts, the head of the Heritage Foundation, which began putting together the latest document in 2022, said he thought the American government would embrace a more conservative era, one that he hoped Republicans would usher in.

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution,” Mr. Roberts said on Real America’s Voice, a right-wing cable channel, in early July, adding pointedly that the revolt “will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .