Debate: Abortion

Should abortions of any kind be permitted?

Background and context

The issue of abortion is one of the most contentious, and emotive dilemmas faced by modern societies. The
question is whether one should allow the termination of a pregnancy. For some, the question is even more
fundamental: at what stage is the embryo or fetus in the uterus to be regarded as a child? At fertilization? At
birth? Or, maybe somewhere between. The battle-lines are drawn between strict, religious (‘pro-life’) arguments
(that it is never permissible), and those (‘pro-choice’) that emphasise the woman’s right to choose as the
primary concern. While abortion has been legal in America since the land-mark Roe vs. Wade case in the early
1970s, this is by no means a reflection of universal agreement – either international or within America itself – as
many Western countries still have considerable restrictions on abortion. For example, the Irish position has
softened only recently, and the Catholic Church steadfastly refuses to change its resolutely pro-life stance in the
face of criticism from Women’s and other lobby-groups.

The abortion debate revolves around a number of questions. Does a woman have a right to her body that the
fetus cannot take away? Does this right mean that a woman has a right to "unplug" from the fetus? Or, does the
fetus have a right to life that is binding on the woman and her body and that outweighs any rights held by the
woman, requiring her to give birth? Is a fetus only a fetus or is it a person that deserves rights and protections?
Does "human life" begin at conception or at birth? Is destroying a fetus akin to "killing a human" or murder?

What about the biological father? What rights does he have over a fetus? If the woman seeks an abortion, can he
prevent it? And, what if she wants to give birth to a child, while he does not want it to happen? What say does
he have? Is this, therefore, simply a question of the woman's rights, or the man's rights as well?

Is a woman responsible for actions and behavior that may lead to an unwanted pregnancy, making her
responsible for the fetus even if it is "unwanted"? Are there circumstances in which a woman cannot be said to
be responsible for her own impregnation, such as failed contraception or rape? Can this justify an abortion?

Is abortion an issue that is subjectively moral/immoral, so should be reserved to individual judgement (not
law)? Must opponents simply tolerate the practice? Or, is the scale of abortions world-wide too large to ignore,
and does this scale give cause to a ban?

Is abortion an important way for young women to ensure that their futures are not destroyed? Is it an important
part of ensuring that women can have sex comfortably and without worry? Is child-rearing more fulfilling than
many women tend to believe? Is it wrong to consider "quality of life" issues here? Is the "sanctity of life" more
important than "quality of life"? Does abortion result in psychological disorders or depression? Does it increase
the chances of cancer? What about during emergencies in which the risks of giving birth are very high for a
woman? Should she be forced to endure these risks, or can an abortion be appropriate in these circumstances?

Does abortion generally empower women with an important choice regarding their bodies? Or, does it demean
them, possibly by opening them to sexual exploitation by men.
Are there viable alternatives to abortion such as adoption? Does the option of adoption invalidate all concerns
regarding raising a child? Are there concerns regarding the safety of child-birth that make the possibility of
putting a child up for adoption risky? Is abortion itself risky? How do the risks of abortion compare to the risks
of child-birth?

Does the illegalization of abortion merely push women to seek "back alley" abortions, which are less safe? Is it
impossible to enforce any ban on abortions? Does this matter? Is abortion merely a new form of birth control
that is being exploited by women, and which allows them (and their partner) to act recklessly in their sexual
behavior?

Is it better to abort a child that will be unwanted or neglected by its parent? Is this good for children that would,
perhaps, suffer, and possibly good for society that would suffer from their presence (crime)? Or is it wrong to
base decisions regarding abortion (life and death) on merely whether a baby is wanted? Are the social problems
that will confront a baby irrelevant or inappropriate to consider? Can/should they be addressed by other means
than abortion? These and other questions frame the complicated abortion debate, which continues to be highly
contentious, with massive support on both sides internationally.

Other background resources

 Wikipedia: Abortion

Woman's rights: Does a woman have a right to her body that includes a
right to abortion?
Yes
 Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a
woman's right Society needs to stop being two-
faced over this issue. Either it's a baby or it's
not. You can't claim murder if you lose the baby
in a car accident on your way to an abortion
clinic. You can't expect your male partner to
pay paternity if he has no say in the abortion.
 Women must control their bodies or risk
becoming servants of the fetus Forcing a
woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy
subjugates a woman to the fetus. Under no
circumstances should a woman's right to
control her own body be curtailed in this way.
Or, in other words, a fetus cannot be said to
have rights to a woman's body that enslave the
woman and her body in the relationship. This
argument is encapsulated in what is known as
the "dialysis analogy", put forward by Judith
Jarvis in "A defense of abortion". The argument
is that, an individual that hypothetically lives off
of another woman's body does not have a right
to continue to utilize that woman's body as a
kind of "dialysis machine". The woman has a
right to "unplug". In the same sense, a woman
has the right to "unplug" her body from the
fetus, which depends on the woman's body to
live, but which does not have rights over the
woman's body for its continued existence.
 Abortion may be immoral, but it is still a
woman's right There are many things that are
seen as immoral by some people, but which
must, nevertheless, be upheld as a right. As is
No
 The "dialysis" analogy is invalid; pregnancy
is unique One of the most famous arguments
against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put
forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares
abortion to a situation in which a healthy
woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a
dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to
keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that
the dying person does not have a right to the
woman's body, and that the woman has a right
to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of
the other person. The problem with the analogy
is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a
special relationship that is incomparable to that
between a woman and a stranger or even a
relative. There is a special biological drive inside
the mother to keep the baby alive and a
dependency by the baby on the mother. The
mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to
keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman
often gives a form of tacit approval to the
existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of
engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly
kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug"
and let it die. These are critical differences that
invalidate a classic, central argument for
abortion.
 Parents must "control their bodies" or else
risk being a servant of their children? Rights
sometimes come with Responsibilities. Let's
take the roof off the argument that claims that a
person (and their body) has unlimited "rights
 argued above, the fetus has no absolute right to
the woman's body, and therefore the woman
has a right to "unplug" (abort). This is the case
no matter how "wrong" we might believe the
act of "unplugging" and killing the fetus to be.
 Opponents can object to abortions, but
must tolerate the choice Opponents of
abortion may have a strong moral case and
belief against abortion. Yet, their beliefs are not
shared by all. They must tolerate a woman's
right to have an abortion, even if they believe
the act to be morally wrong. The best that
opponents can hope for is to convince women
that it is immoral, but to ask for the
illegalization of abortion would be to wrongly
deny that abortion is a right.
 Denying abortion rights forces maternity
on women (state rape) Edward Abbey, an
American author - "Abolition of a woman's right
to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts
to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the
State."[1]
 A woman has the sole right to decide to
seek an abortion. A woman carries a child
during pregnancy and undergoes child-birth.
No-one else carries the child for her; it will be
her responsibility alone, and thus she should
have the sole right to decide. These are
important events in a woman’s life, and if she
does not want to go through the full nine
months and subsequent birth, then she should
have the right to choose not to do so. There are
not to be enslaved" as a consequence of being a
parent, which was almost always the result of
their of their own action (not "controlling their
body," use of contraceptives, etc.) and yet their
fetus/child has no rights for care. If the principle
of "enslavement" were true would it not extend
to the care of a new born or older child? A new-
born depends on it's mother's body and breast
milk for the same nutrition and similar if not
greater nurturing available to him/her in the
womb. Can a mother, father or caretaker
morally or legally neglect or "unplug" the child
from nutrition and care on the "enslavement"
argument? No. Does one have greater personal
rights by virtue of "their body," or can a parent
provide care without "their body?" No. Can we
protest that "forcing a parent to continue being
a parent subjugates them to the child? Of
course not. The child has a right to care from it's
parents or legal guardians and they have a
responsibility to care for him or her.
 The right to choice/privacy (abortion) does
not override the right to life Jesse Jackson, U.S.
civil rights activist, now in favor of legal
abortion, in National Right to Life News,
(January, 1977) - "There are those who argue
that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order
than the right to life ... that was the premise of
slavery. You could not protest the existence or
treatment of slaves on the plantation because
that was private and therefore outside your
right to be concerned." Thus, even if a woman
has a right to her body and to "choice", this
 few – if any – other cases where something
with such profound consequences is forced
upon a human being against her/his will.
 Abortion is the woman's choice, not the
father's The Father should be told that the
woman is having an abortion but until he
carries and gives birth to his own baby then it is
not his choice to tell the woman that she has to
keep and give a painful birth to this fetus.
 The mother's life is more valuable than the
fetus. What makes the mothers life more
important is that she is a full-grown adult and
has the ability to make more children.
 Women can reproduce new children with
equal value to the aborted. The potential of
any given child is unimportant in the context of
it being possible, after an abortion, for a mother
to reproduce many more children. Who is to
say that a particular child has any more
potential than the next? This argument is
strengthened by the fact that women and
couples typically aim to produce a certain
number of children. Even if they abort a child
(they'll still aim to produce the same number),
so the quantity of newborns and potential is
not diminished by the existence of abortion.
 If women can't be trusted with "choice",
how can they be trusted with children?It is
important that society trust in women and
individuals to make the right moral choices. In
regard to abortion, if women can't be trusted to
right is overridden by the fetus's right to life.
And, what could be more important than life?
All other rights, including the mother’s right to
choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if
you have no right to any life, then how do you
have a right to an autonomous one? The
woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right
to control her own body, but this does not
confer on her the entirely separate (and
insupportable) right to decide whether another
human lives or dies.
 Women should be held responsible for
behavior leading to impregnation. If one does
not want to have a baby, they should not have
sex, or they should take extreme precaution
when having sex. Sex is not a game. It is a
serious matter of reproduction and life. If a
woman plays with it and becomes pregnant, she
should be held responsible to carry out the birth
of her child. And, it should be noted that the
responsibility could end at child-birth, with it
being possible to put a child up for adoption.
The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy
need not be major, but they must be born by
the mother and father.
 A woman's rights are not the only rights
that need to be respected in abortion: Of
course, human-rights should be respected, but
it is never the case that a person has a right to
make a decision with no reference to the rights
and wishes of others. There are two primary
rights that must be considered in addition to the
make the right choice, how can they be trusted
with children?
 The scale of abortions makes state
 Under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn
 Birth control is easy to obtain.
rights of the woman. First, the father has some
rights over the fetus. Second, the fetus itself
may have some rights. The point is merely that
the woman's interests and rights cannot be the
only ones under consideration.
intervention compelling Some argue that
abortion is an individual moral choice that the
state should not get involved with. Yet, when an
individual moral choice is practiced on a massive
scale, it becomes a concern for broader society
and government as well.
would adopt a pro-life social contract The "veil
of ignorance" is a notion put forward by liberal
philosopher John Rawls. This idea relates to the
social contract people would adopt if they were
effectively unborn spirits under a "veil of
ignorance" regarding where they would "end-
up" in life. The conclusion is that everyone
would adopt a social contract that hedges
against poor outcomes if they get the "short-
end of the stick". Abortion could be considered
the "shortest stick" (death - no life at all), so it is
likely that, under a "veil of ignorance", the
unborn would would adopt a pro-life social
contract. It is notable that this social contract
theory is tenant of liberal thought, and yet
liberals are most supportive of abortion. There
may be an inconsistency there.
Fetus rights: Is it wrong to assign rights to the fetus? Is it not a person?
Yes
 A fetus cannot have a right to a woman's
body to sustain its life No individual has rights
over another individual. Therefore, a fetus
cannot be said to have an inviolable right to a
woman's body and sustenance from that body.
A woman can, therefore, decide to deprive the
fetus of the usage of her body (abortion).
 A fetus is no more a human than an acorn
is a tree Judith Jarvis Thomson. "A Defense of
Abortion". Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1,
no. 1 (Fall 1971). - "Most opposition to abortion
relies on the premise that the fetus is a human
being, a person, from the moment of
conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I
think, not well. Take, for example, the most
common argument. We are asked to notice that
the development of a human being from
conception through birth into childhood is
continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to
choose a point in this development and say
"before this point the thing is not a person,
after this point it is a person" is to make an
arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the
nature of things no good reason can be given. It
is concluded that the fetus is or anyway that we
had better say it is, a person from the moment
of conception. But this conclusion does not
follow. Similar things might be said about the
development of an acorn into an oak trees, and
it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or
that we had better say they are...A newly
fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of
No
 Human life and a right to life begin at
conception; abortion is murderHuman life is
continuum of growth that starts at conception,
not at birth. The DNA that makes a person who
they are is first mixed at conception upon the
male sperm entering the female egg. This is
when the genetic building blocks of a person are
"conceived" and built upon. The person,
therefore, begins at conception. Killing the
fetus, thus, destroys a growing person and can
be considered murder. Ronald Reagan, quoted
in the New York Times on September 22,1980
"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion
has already been born."
 Life is an individual right, not a privilege,
for unborn humans Mother Teresa, in her
amicus brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court
in the cases of Loce v. New Jersey and Krail et al.
v. New Jersey in February 1994 - "Human rights
are not a privilege conferred by government.
They are every human being’s entitlement by
virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not
depend, and must not be contingent, on the
pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or
sovereign... you must weep that your own
government, at present, seems blind to this
truth."[2]
 A fetus is uniquely capable of becoming a
person; deserves rights It is unquestionable
that the fetus, at whatever stage of
development, will inevitably develop the traits
of a full-grown human person. It will also
 cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an
oak tree."
 A fetus is not a "person" so can't have
rights protecting it from abortion: Is
terminating a fetus, which can neither feel
emotions nor be conscious of its own
"existence," really be considered equivalent to
killing a "person?" Some define personhood
(qualifying for rights) through a set of criteria. A
being need not exhibit every criterion to qualify
as a person, but failure to exhibit most is
proposed as disqualification. One list includes
consciousness (at least the capacity to feel
pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to
communicate on many possible topics, and self-
awareness. Lists like this are intended to help
someone be able to objectively distinguish
between a biological human and a person. An
embryo is not a person because it satisfies only
one criterion, namely consciousness (and this
only after it becomes susceptible to pain).
Other sets of criteria conclude that an embryo
lacks personhood (and a right to life) because it
lacks self-consciousness, rationality, and
autonomy. These lists diverge over precisely
which features confer a right to life, but tend to
propose that they are developed psychological
features not found in embryos.
 The fetus causes physical pain; the woman
has a right to self-defense. The fetus causes
sickness, discomfort, and and extreme pain to a
woman during her pregnancy and labor. It is,
inevitably accumulate all of the rights that you
yourself have. If we deprive the unborn of life
via abortions, however, they will be deprived of
all of this potential and future rights. This is why
extending a right to life is of utmost importance;
the future of the unborn depends on it.
 No one argues that an acorn or even an
animal fetus has a “sanctity” or rights. No,
human beings are in an entirely different class.
We are called not to murder human life, not
acorns. It's not the stage of development, it's
the precious value of humans. Abortionists
focus only on the early stage of development
and ignore the specialness and reverence we
should have for even a tiny (but growing)
human life. A living, developing human fetus by
definition IS a human life.
 If these criteria for being a "person" are
valid then killing infants is justifiable. Infants
also lack self motivation, self-awareness,
rationality, autonomy, and the ability to
converse on a variety of subjects.
 Wanted fetuses are beloved "babies";
unwanted ones are "tissue"
(inconsistent) Naomi Wolf, feminist author and
advocate of legal abortion, in "Our Bodies, Our
Souls", The New Republic (October 15, 1995) -
"Wanted fetuses are charming, complex, REM-
dreaming little beings whose profile on the
sonogram looks just like Daddy, but unwanted
ones are mere 'uterine material'?"[3]
 therefore, justifiable for a woman to pursue an
abortion in self-defense.
 Potential of fetus to become a person is
not sufficient Ayn Rand - "Never mind the
vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo
has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has
no rights -— and no life in the human sense of
the term. One may argue about the later stages
of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns
only the first three months. To equate a
potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate
the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is
unspeakable."
 If a fetus had a right to life, abortionists
would be subject to murder chargesWhile
abortionists claim that fetuses should have a
right to life, they would never go so far as to
charge abortionists with murder. Yet, this is
what would be required if we gave fetuses a
right to life. Therefore, there is a fundamental
inconsistency in this position.
 Women can only be "pregnant" with a
"child" not merely a "fetus" This is similar to
the above argument. The point is that
pregnancy can only be called pregnancy and
that you can only be pregnant with a "child".
Nobody would ever say, "I'm pregnant with a
fetus". Therefore, fetuses should be considered
"unborn children" with correlating rights.
 Fetuses, as dependents, do have some
rights over their mother's bodyThe mother-
fetus relationship is unlike any other
relationship between individuals. The fetus is,
without choice or by chance, dependent on its
mother for sustenance and life. The mother has
unique responsibilities toward the fetus in this
relationship, and so, yes, a fetus has some
unique rights over its mother.
 Pro-abortionists dehumanize "fetuses" to
get away with murderFrederica Matthewes-
Green, "Personhood of the Unborn", on National
Public Radio's All Things Considered, (January
21, 1998) - "When we question whether
someone is a person, it is because we want to
kill him. We do this with our enemies in
wartime, or with anyone we would like to
enslave or exploit. Before we can feel
comfortable treating others this way, we have
to expel them from the human community. But
there's just no logical reason to expel the
unborn."[4]
 Abortion deprives a fetus of an entire
human future: Some argue that abortion is
 wrong because it deprives the embryo of a
valuable future. Indeed, killing any human being
is wrong because it deprives the victim of a
valuable future: any experiences, activities,
projects, and enjoyments that they would have
enjoyed. Abortion is particularly egregious
because it deprives a fetus of all experiences as
a human being.

 The unborn are voiceless and should be

protected against abortionRonald Reagan. New
York Times. September 22nd. 1980 - "I've
noticed that everybody that is for abortion has
already been born."[5]In other words, the
unborn would all be against abortion, but, of
course, they can't express their opinion as
for/against abortion. It is important to protect
such a voiceless minority in society.

 That the fetus may do harm to the mother

cannot justify destroying it.Even when born, a
child can inflict much more physical pain on the
mother than he can on the womb, his
destruction is still illegal.

 It is wrong to kill fetuses on the basis that

they can't think/feel. On "the fetus cant think
argument": Animal abuse, suicide and even
cutting down a tree are frequently illegal on the
basis that these things have some value and
should not be destroyed, killed, or treated
inhumanely. It has little to do with the degree of
consciousness attained by a creature. If the
destruction of any species with a significant
value is illegal, what makes abortion any
 different?

 Fetuses are conscious in the womb and

suffer during abortions Unborn babies have a
certain level of consciousness in the womb. This
is partly why mothers sometimes walk around
with earphones on their stomachs. Irrespective
of the level of consciousness of unborn babies,
their central nervous system certainly affords
them the ability to feel pain and suffer. For
these reasons, they should not be aborted.

Dignity of life: Does abortion uphold the "dignity of life"?

Yes
 Even if abortions "kill life", it can be
justified as upholding a woman's life Even if a
fetus is considered a "baby" or human life,
abortions can still be justified. The "baby" is still
not a citizen with rights, while it is in the womb.
In this case, the woman's right to choose
outweighs considerations of the life of the
fetus. The life of the woman takes precedent
over the life of the fetus. This is pro-life (pro-
the-life-of-the-woman) and so respects the
dignity of life.
 There is no inviolable "right to life" in
abortion and other cases. It is clear that the
notion of "the right to life" can sometimes be
violated for certain ends. This is the case in
sending soldiers to war. So as in abortion, it can
be justified to kill a fetus under certain
circumstances.
 Hypocritical to protect fetuses, but
casually wage war Rick Claro - "George W. Bush
will protect your unborn fetus, then send your
grown child to die in war."[6]This is a common
argument that undermines the notion of "the
sanctity of life" and the notion that it is
"inviolable". Clearly, in war, humans frequently
justify killing other human beings.
 In a free society, abortion is truly a matter
of personal belief. The issue of abortion
debates the question of whether or not the
unborn child is a human being, or at what point
it becomes so. This question cannot be
No
 Abortion generally devalues the dignity we
assign to life Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and the
Conscience of a Nation", Human Life Review,
Spring 1984 - "We cannot diminish the value of
one category of human life—the unborn—
without diminishing the value of all human
life."[7]
 Abortion sets precedent of valuing some
humans less than othersRonald Reagan,
"Abortion and the Conscience of a
Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. -
"Regrettably, we live at a time when some
persons do not value all human life. They want
to pick and choose which individuals have
value."[8]
 No one argues that an acorn or even an
animal fetus has a “sanctity” or rights. No,
human beings are entirely different class. We
are called not to murder human life, not acorns.
Abortionists focus only on stage development
and ignore the specialness and reverence we
should have for even a tiny (but growing)
human life.
 Uncertainty over whether fetuses are "life"
should halt abortions.There are strong
arguments in favor of fetuses being life from
conception and some strong arguments against.
At a minimum, uncertainty about the "truth"
should cause us to place a moratorium on
abortions until we figure it out.
answered for the collective body of society,
rather should be answered by the individual
based on personal and religious beliefs. If an
individual believes that an unborn child is a
human being, then the "right to life" term can
be justified by that individual for their own
personal choice. If an individual believes that
the unborn child is not a human being, then
there is no justification for laws to prohibiting
an abortion. Therefore It should be argued that
this is an issue for the individual; that an
individual seeking an abortion has their own
responsibility to be informed thoroughly about
the matter, but should never be forced to agree
or disagree.
 Human life is continuum; doesn't
start/stop at conception George Carlin,
comedian - "People say 'life begins at
conception.' I say life began about a billion years
ago and it's a continuous process."[9]Therefore,
you can't call a fetus something other than life;
it is part of the long continuum of human life
and must be fully respected as such.
 Abortions encourage infanticide Ronald
Reagan, "Abortion and the Conscience of a
Nation", Human Life Review, Spring 1984. -
"Late-term abortions, especially when the baby
survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect,
or suffocation, show once again the link
between abortion and infanticide. The time to
stop both is now."[10]
 Abortion is murder just as infanticide is
murder It cannot be said that the abortion of a
nine-month-old fetus is much different than the
killing of a three day old baby. Neither then can
much difference be given to aborting a nine-
month-old fetus and a month-old fetus. If
infanticide is murder, so too must be abortion.
 Killing helpless fetus is incomparable to
death of willing soldier. How can you compare
an unborn baby to the willing beings that fight
in wars they have choosen the fate of going to
war and the know of the harsh consquenses
that may follow. A baby on the other hand is
born into the world if permitted not of their
own free will but of the mother's decision to
abort or have the child.
Safety: Are abortions safe? What about legal versus illegal abortions?
Yes
 "Back alley" abortions are more frequent
when abortion is illegal. Back-alley abortions
are abortions performed illegally on the "black-
market" when abortion is generally illegal.
Back-alley abortions are less regulated and
more likely to result in the death or harming of
the mother.
 Legal abortions safer than black market
abortions Mary Calderone, founder of SIECUS
and medical director of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, "Illegal abortion as a
public health problem," American Journal of
Public Health, July 1960 - "90% of illegal
abortions are being done by physicians. Call
them what you will, abortionists or anything
else, they are still physicians, trained as
such; . . . They must do a pretty good job if the
death rate is as low as it is . . . Abortion,
whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no
longer dangerous, because it is being done well
by physicians."[11]
 Abortion does not negatively affect a
woman's sexual functions A study conducted at
University of Copenhagen has shown legal
abortion is associated with few adverse effects
on sexual function among women in Denmark.
 Abortion is no more risky or harmful than
ordinary birth. While abortion has it's risks, it's
important that we compare it against the
alternative, which is going through with giving
birth. This probably entails just as many risks, if
No
 Abortions are very risky and hazardous to
the women Warren Hern, abortion practitioner
and author of Abortion Practice (1990), the
textbook most widely used in the United States
to teach abortion to medical personnel- "In
medical practice, there are few surgical
procedures given so little attention and so
underrated in its potential hazard as abortion."
 Preventing "back alley" abortions are no
reason to legalize abortion.That the illegality of
abortion may lead to back-alley abortions is not
a reason to legalize abortion. This argument has
nothing to do with the core moral principles
underlying the debate (regarding life and
rights), so should not be considered.
 Abortions are emotionally and
psychologically unsafe. If by 'safe' you mean
that a woman can survive, then the answer is
possibly. A woman can have even multiple
abortions and live through each. But if by 'safe'
you mean that she will experience no physical,
emotional, or psychological harm, then the
answer is no. She will spend the rest of her life
dealing with the myriad of consequences of the
abortion by constantly shoving the rattling
skeletons back into the closet. And will daily
seek expiation, or seek to justify herself. In any
case, none of these leaves a woman 'safe'.
 not more, as an abortion.

Life-style: Does abortion improve the ability of women to live life how
they want?
Yes
 Abortion allows women to become better
people without a child Rachel Kramer Bussel,
"I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck", Village Voice,
January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice because I
couldn't fully enjoy sex were I consumed with
worry about the potential consequences. I'm
pro-choice for all my friends who've had
abortions and gone on to do great things, who
are better women for being childless (for now).
I'm pro-choice for the new moms and dads I
know who were able to actively choose to
become parents. I'm pro-choice for all those
babies... born knowing they're 100 percent
loved and wanted."[12]
 Abortion allows women to have sex
comfortably without fear of pregnancy Rachel
Kramer Bussel, "I'm Pro-Choice and I Fuck",
Village Voice, January 13, 2006 - "I'm pro-choice
because I couldn't fully enjoy sex were I
consumed with worry about the potential
consequences."[13]
 No woman "wants" an abortion; it is only
the least bad alternative Women do not
"want" abortions. They find themselves in a
position in which abortion is the less bad
between bad alternatives. This argument is
important in explaining that abortion is not
about a malicious desire to "kill babies" or even
to express their right to choose; it is about
allowing women to make the best choice that
they can.
No
 Abortion advocates wrongly value "quality
of life" over "sanctity of life" Ronald Reagan,
"Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation",
Human Life Review, Spring 1984 - "As a nation,
we must choose between the sanctity of life
ethic and the 'quality of life' ethic. I have no
trouble identifying the answer our nation has
always given to this basic question, and the
answer that I hope and pray it will give in the
future."[14]
 Child-rearing is a beautiful, natural
process, not a burden Victoria Woodhull, first
woman to run for U.S. President, member of the
Equal Rights Party, in Woodhull's and Claffin's
Weekly (September 23, 1871). - "Child-bearing is
not a disease, but a beautiful office of nature.
But to our faded-out, sickly, exhausted type of
women, it is a fearful ordeal. Nearly every child
born is an unwelcome guest. Abortion is the
choice of evils for such women."[15]
 On abortion the issue is when love not life
begins Robert Casey, former Governor of
Pennsylvania - "When we look to the unborn
child, the real issue is not when life begins, but
when love begins."[16]The point is, since we
should be capable of loving a fetus (a human
being in the making), we should subsequently
provide that being with rights and protections.
It matters not what we call the unborn child (a
"baby", "human", "life"); as long as we love it,
we should protect it. And, an attitude and life-
style of love and acceptance is superior to an
 attitude and life-style of fear and regret.

 Abortion worsens parenting by devaluing

the parent-child relationshipIf an unborn child
is seen as expendable, the parent comes to
believe that their relationship with the unborn
child is conditional and non-binding. During
child-rearing, this philosophy can be very
damaging for the quality of parenting.

Child-hazards: Is abortion a means of avoiding hazards for child?

Yes No

 Child protection. Many pregnant women  The child's life is being taken away. His or
who want to undergo abortion were physically her life is gone before he or she has gotten a
and sexually abused and thus they do not wish chance to live. That is the ultimate injustice,
a child became a party to such abuses. Most hazard.
women would like to protect their child or
potential child from enduring the suffering to
which they themselves are exposed - and if this
is not possible, these women would go for an
abortion.

Depression: Are women usually content with a past decision to abort?

Yes
 Post-abortion syndrome is not a medically
recognized syndrome: The American
Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS.
 It is better to regret not having a child than
regret having one It is clear that abortion is a
choice between evils. Therefore, the question is
not whether a woman will regret having an
abortion; she will. The reason abortion is
justified is that a woman will sometimes regret
having a child more than she will regret having
an abortion. Abortion is sometimes justified as
the better choice between evils.
 Many women are disturbed by their
abortions but remain pro-choice Rosemary
Candelario, director of Massachusetts Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice, September
2001 - "I think the fear in the [abortion rights]
movement is if we admit abortion is hard for
some women, then we're admitting that it's
wrong, which is totally not the case. I've heard
from women who are having problems dealing
with their abortion who are still ardently pro-
choice."[17]
 Abortion may have a positive or neutral
impact on the emotions of the womenMultiple
studies find a positive or neutral correlation
between abortion and mental and emotional
health.
 Risk-taking and disorders lead to
No
 Abortion often leads to regret, depression,
and even mental illnessCarol Everett - “The
product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold
to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She
buys the product, finds it defective and wants to
return it for a refund. But, it's too
late.”[18]These feelings of regret often lead to
depression and sometimes to a condition
known as "post-abortion syndrome".
 Alcoholism and drug-use are common after
abortions. There are many reports of woman
falling into not only depression, but spates of
alcoholism and drug-use after having abortions.
 Fewer women would have abortions if
they knew what they were doing Bernard
Nathanson, former abortion doctor turned pro-
life, in his book Aborting America, 1979 - "Fewer
women would have abortions if wombs had
windows."[19]After the abortion, women are
confronted with a much more profound sense
of the reality of what they have done and what
they have lost. This often triggers depression.
 The lives of women have been destroyed
by abortion, not enhancedNorma McCorvey,
the anonymous litigant known as "Jane Roe" in
the landmark abortion case, Roe vs. Wade in her
book Won by Love (June 17, 2003) - "One of my
most important activities is that I am involved,
together with Sandra Cano of Doe vs. Bolton, in
the efforts of the Texas Justice Foundation (and
other groups) to work for the reversal of the
 abortions; not the opposite This argument is
partly a response to studies that claim that
there is a correlation between abortion and
mental disorders. The point is that this might be
true, but the causality of this correlation must
be determined. It may be that those with
existing mental disorders are more likely to take
risks that lead to the need for abortion, and
that this is the explanation for the correlation,
rather than that abortion leads to mental
disorders.
Unwanted/adoption: Is abortion OK in dealing with "unwanted"
children? Vs. adoption?
Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions. The
approach we are taking is to show that the lives
and rights of women have not been advanced or
enhanced, but rather destroyed, by abortion-
on-demand. We are collecting affidavits from
women who have been harmed by abortion,
from women who are convinced that authentic
feminism is pro-life, and from professionals who
know that Roe has weakened the moral fabric
of the legal and medical professions."[20]
Yes
 It is better to seek abortion than neglect a
born child It is unfair to give birth to a child that
will be neglected, underfed, under-educated,
and that will likely lead an unfulfilling life. It is
also better for society for fetuses to be aborted
that are brought up poor and neglected. Not
only will the child suffer, but society will suffer
when that child develops a higher attraction to
crime, welfare, etc.
 Adoption is too risky making it a poor
alternative to abortion Kristin Luker, Abortion
and the Politics of Motherhood (1984) - "Having
a baby and giving it up for adoption, as pro-life
people advocate, is not seen by most pro-
choice people as a moral solution to the
abortion problem. To transform a fetus into a
baby and then send it out into a world where
the parents can have no assurance that it will
be well-loved and cared for is, for pro-choice
people, the height of moral
irresponsibility."[21]
 Adoption does not spare a women the
pains/risks of childbirth. One of the main
reasons that an abortion makes sense is that it
spares women of the pains and risks of child-
birth. Adoption does not spare women of these
pains and risks, and so fails to address a central
rationale underlying abortion.
 Adoption can be as emotionally damaging
as abortion. Giving up a child for adoption can
be just as emotionally damaging as having an
No
 Unborn life should never depend on
whether it is "wanted" Graciela Olivarez,
Chicana civil rights and anti-poverty activist,
1972 - "The poor cry out for justice and equality,
and we respond with legalized abortion. I
believe that in a society that permits the life of
even one individual to be dependent on
whether that life is ‘wanted’ or not, all its
citizens stand in danger...We do not have equal
opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."[22]
 "Unwanted" children can be adopted;
abortion is unnecessary Mother Teresa of
Calcutta quotes (Albanian born Indian
Missionary and Founder of the Order of the
Missionaries of Charity. Nobel Prize for Peace in
1979. 1910-1997) - "These concerns (for orphan
children in India and elsewhere in the world) are
very good, but often these same people are not
concerned with the millions that are killed by
the deliberate decision of their own mothers.
And this is what is the greatest destroyer of
peace today, Abortion...For the pregnant
women who don't want their children, give
them to me."[23]
 Support can be given to women who can't
support a child Ronald Reagan, "Abortion and
the Conscience of a Nation",  Human Life
Review, Spring 1984. - "As we continue to work
to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue
to lay the groundwork for a society in which
abortion is not the accepted answer to
unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have
abortion. It is, therefore, not necessarily easier already taken heroic steps, often at great
on the mother. personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed
mothers."[24]

 Abortion is not a just response to social

problems facing the unborn If a child is likely to
face social difficulties, this is absolutely no
reason to seek an abortion. The notion that a
child will be unhappy due to these conditions or
will have no chances of success is ludicrous. It is
easy to find examples of poor and neglected
children that have grown up to become thriving,
successful, and happy adults. In any case, if
social problems are the concern, these
problems should be addressed; abortion is a
terrible band-aid. Saying that a child would
encounter social problems during his or her
development is not the same as saying that he
or she is better off dead.

 Abortion deprives couples that want to

adopt of a potential child. There are many
infertile couples around the world or people
that would simply like to adopt children.
Abortion deprives these people of a child.

 A woman must bear the pain/risks of birth;

the life of the fetus is worth it. If the woman
was the only consideration in abortions, than it
might make sense for them to avoid the pain of
child-birth. But, her interests are not the only
ones in play. The life of the fetus is very
important as well. Preserving the life of the
fetus is worth the risks and pains incurred by
the woman in child-birth.
Emergency: Is abortion justified in order to save the life of a mother?
Yes
 It is just for a mother to abort a fetus to
save herself In such cases of medical
emergency and in the interest of saving a
women's life, surely it is permissible to abort
the fetus. To argue otherwise would be to
uphold the rights of the unborn over the living,
which is wrongheaded and immoral.
 Legal abortion protects women with
serious illnesses that are vulnerable. Tens of
thousands of women have heart disease, kidney
disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia
and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that
are made worse by childbearing. Legal abortion
helps women avert these unavoidable risks to
their health and lives.
 If abortion in self-defense is OK, a fetus
cannot have a general right to lifeOpponents of
abortion often argue that a fetus has an
inviolable right to life. Yet, it is easy to
demonstrate that this is not the case. It is
always permissible to take a life in self-defense.
This principle can be applied to abortion. And,
importantly, it also demonstrates that there is
no such thing as an "inviolable right to life".
There are always conditional exceptions. So, if
we can show that the conditions are
appropriate (even beyond self-defense), an
abortion can be justified, even if it is "killing".
Rape: Should instances of impregnation through rape justify abortion?
No
 A child should not be killed to save a
mother: Whilst these are different
circumstances, and such medical emergencies
are tragic, it is by no means obvious that the
abortion is to be performed. The ‘mother vs.
child’ dilemma is one which defies solution, and
aborting to preserve one of the lives sets a
dangerous precedent that it is acceptable to kill
a person in order to save another. This is a clear,
and unpalatable, case of treating a human-being
as a means to an end.
 Abortions under "trying circumstances" are
the exception not the ruleMost abortions are
performed entirely voluntarily by women that
have the means to raise a child, but simply don't
want to. While emergency abortions or
abortions under trying circumstances such as
rape are held out as reasons to continue to have
abortions, they are infrequent and serve more
to provide cover for voluntarily "life-style"
abortions. This is wrong.
 Letting a woman die is better than directly
killing an unborn baby There is a difference
between letting a woman die from the presence
of a fetus and the process of giving birth and
actively killing a fetus. One is "letting die", the
other is "killing". The distinction is important,
and is a good reason to oppose abortion even
during special emergencies.
Yes
 Abortion must be justified in cases of
impregnation by rape Woman, and in some
cases girls, who have been raped should not
have to suffer the additional torment of being
pregnant with the product of that ordeal. To
force a woman to produce a living, constant
reminder of that act is unfair on both mother
and child.
 Rape is an arbitrary exception; abortion
must be available in all pregnancies.Many
opponents of abortion allow for abortion in
instances of rape. But, this assigns rights
arbitrarily to the unborn "bastard child" as
compared to an ordinarily-conceived child. It
confers lower rights on the unborn "bastard
child". This is wrong. The solution, though,
cannot be to ban abortions even in cases of
rape. Instead, the solution is to legalize all
forms of abortion.
 Abortion prevents victims of rape from
becoming unready mothers| In cases where
the rape victims cannot afford or is not ready to
have a child, abortion can do both the victim
and the unborn baby a favour. There are cases
where school students are impregnated
through rape. Pregnancy itself is a constant
reminder of the sexual assault their underwent
and might cause emotional instability, which
will affect their studies, and subsequently their
future. Moreover pregnancy might even affect
the health and growth of the young girls.
Besides, babies born to unready mothers are
No
 Rape does not qualify abortion; it is not
the child's fault; abortion is still
murder. Denying someone life because of the
circumstances of their conception is unfair. They
had no say in these circumstances, and were,
instead, simply given life. It does not matter
what the conditions of this life were. It is still
wrong to kill life, particularly an unborn baby.
 A rape victim can put their baby up for
adoption. Why can't a rape victim put their
child up for adoption? Isn't this an adequate
resolution to the problem? The only reason it
might not be an adequate resolution are the
risks and pains of child-birth and perhaps the
difficulty of separating from the child. But, these
objections are easily dealt with. First,
maintaining the life of a fetus is worth the pains
and risks that it might cause the mother.
Second, there is no difference in separating
from an unborn child (abortion) as compared to
a born child (adoption).
 Having an abortion is just as wrong as the
rape itself. The child has a right to life just as
much as that woman had the right to not be
raped. Her rights were violated by the rapist.
Aborting the child would be violating the child's
right to life. I certainly feel deeply for anyone in
such a position, but that doesn't mean I would
sympathize with them enough to believe they
have the right to then cause harm to another. A
woman's body is required to produce life,
therefore an unborn child has no other option
 likely to be neglected or would not be able to
enjoy what other children have, be it due to
financial reasons or the unwillingness of the
mothers to bring up the "unwanted children".
then to rely on her, no matter the reason for
conception. The rapist made a choice based on
his own selfish feelings and beliefs in what he
was entitled to, isn't that exactly what happens
when we allow abortion as a "choice?"

Exploitation: Does abortion protect or expose women to sexist/sexual

exploitation?
Yes
 If women (not men) are solely burdened
by pregnancy, they must have a choice.Men
are dominant in their ability to impregnate a
woman, but carry no responsibilities afterward.
If woman carry the entire burden of pregnancy,
they must have a choice.
 Opposition to abortion is based largely on
sexism toward women Florynce R. Kennedy,
1973 - "If men could get pregnant, abortion
would be a sacrament."[25]
 It is odd to defend the dignity of a fetus
over a child-rearer There is a peculiar double
standard being applied by opponents of
abortion. The dignity of the fetus is glorified,
while the dignity of the child-rearer is seemingly
ignored and even trampled. This is particularly
concerning when more men appear to support
abortion than woman; it appears that men are
more willing to trample the child-bearer (a
woman) than the child.
Birth control: Is abortion an important safety net to birth control? Is it an
alternative?
No
 Abortion fails to liberate women as
intended Instead of freeing women, abortion
places women in a new prison of regret and
torment.
 Abortion opens the door to the sexual
exploitation of women The existence of
abortion gives men a little more of a safeguard
against unintentionally impregnating a woman.
As a result, men will be more aggressive in their
sexual exploitation of women.
 Rejecting abortion and going through with
pregnancies empowers women Patricia
Heaton, Emmy-winning actress, Washington
Times, (April 14, 2005) - "The early feminists
found abortion to be the ultimate exploitation
of women. [Women had to] become men to
compete. We bought into that. We're smarter
today. It's more empowering to go through with
your pregnancy."[26]
Yes
 Abortions are mostly sought when birth
control fails Clayton H. McCracken, director of
Inter Mountain Planned Parenthood, Fall 2000 -
"Most of the patients come to our abortion
clinic as a result of failure of a birth control
method, or a failure of our system to provide
birth control."[27]
 Abortion is just when birth control fails
(involuntary impregnation) If a woman does
not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is
impossible for a fetus to have any claim over
the woman's body. Only when the woman
participates voluntarily in creating a life, does
she open the door to any responsibilities to the
fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have
over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an
accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot
be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot
be said to have any rights over the mother's
body, and abortion can be said to be justified.
Child disability: Is abortion justified when an unborn child suffers a
disability?
No
 Abortion is wrongly sought as an
alternative form of birth controlKristin Luker,
Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not
to Contracept (1975) - "In short, there are no
empirical grounds for assuming that women
have an à priori preference for contraception
over abortion."[28]In other words, women see
abortion as a suitable alternative to birth
control.
Abortion shouldn't be a form of birth
control when other forms are readily
available. With contraception being so
effective, unwanted pregnancies are
typically a result of irresponsible sexual
behavior. Such irresponsible behavior does
not deserve an exit from an unwanted
pregnancy through abortion.
Yes
 Abortion is justified when the fetus is
certain to suffer and die from a
disability:Finally, due to advances in
medical technology it is possible to
determine during pregnancy whether the
child will be disabled. In cases of severe
disability, in which the child would have a
very short, very painful and tragic life, it is
surely the right course of action to allow
the parents to choose a termination. This
avoids both the suffering of the parents
and of the child.
Viability: Is viability a good cut-off point for abortion?
No
 What right does anyone have to deprive
another of life on the grounds that they
deem that life as not worth living? This
arrogant and sinister presumption is
impossible to justify, given that many
people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives.
What disabilities would be regarded as the
water-shed between life and termination?
The practise of eugenics is roundly
condemned by all civilised countries.
 The fact that a child is likely to have a short
life does not justify further shortening
it: When you see someone who has very
little, do you take away all he has? The
short life expectancy of a disabled child
does not justify his deliberate killing!
Yes No

 Viability is a good cut-off for when  A line on "viability" is arbitrary; from

abortion is appropriate or not. Anthony conception humans are always
Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, speaking increasingly "viable" It is faulty to claim
for the Court in Planned Parenthood v. that a fetus can achieve "viability", where
Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (joint opinion it becomes an independent creature and
coauthored with Justices Souter and worthy of some rights. Humans are always
O’Connor) - "At the heart of liberty is the increasing in their independence and
right to define one's own concept of ability to survive. In modernity, children
existence, of meaning, of the universe, cannot survive on their own into their
and of the mystery of human life.... teens.
[P]eople have organized intimate
relationships and made choices that
define their views of themselves and their
places in society, in reliance on the
availability of abortion in the event that
contraception should fail…. We conclude
the line should be drawn at viability, so
that, before that time, the woman has a
right to choose to terminate her
pregnancy....[T]here is no line other than
viability which is more workable. To be
sure, as we have said, there may be some
medical developments that affect the
precise point of viability, but this is an
imprecision within tolerable limits....A
husband has no enforceable right to
require a wife to advise him before she
exercises her personal choices."[29]

Enforcement: Would a ban on abortion be unenforceable?

Yes No

 A ban on abortion presents practical  Difficulties of enforcement should not

problems of enforcement: Enforcing an diminish the principles of the law: Many
abortion ban would require a quite laws have difficulties pertaining to
degrading and inhumane treatment of implementation, but these do not diminish
those women who wished to have their the strength of the principle behind them:
foetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant people will kill other people, regardless of
women traveled abroad, they would be your legislating against it, but it does not
able to have an abortion in a country follow that you shouldn’t legislate against
where it was legal. Either the state takes it.
the draconian measure of restricting
freedom of movement, or it must admit
that its law is unworkable in practice and
abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly
accepting foreign terminations would
render hypocritical the much-vaunted
belief in the sanctity of life. In addition,
the demand for abortions will always
exist; making abortion illegal, will simply
drive it underground and into conditions
where the health and safety of the
woman might be put at risk.

Doctors: Are the doctors that perform abortions OK with their act?
Yes
 Doctors that have difficulty performing
abortions still acknowledge its
importance. Many people have trouble
with parts of their profession. A general,
for instance, has trouble sending his
troops to their death, but typically
acknowledges the need for this to occur in
certain instance. Abortion doctors,
similarly, might be challenged by the
process of an abortion (and even believe
that they are "killing" the fetus), but
nevertheless acknowledge the need for
abortions and so are comfortable with
their profession. The difficulty doctors
experience in performing abortions,
therefore, is not an argument against
abortions.
And death penalty: How can people be anti-abortion but pro death
penalty?
No
 Doctors that perform abortions are often
emotionally damagedAnonymous
abortion doctor, quoted by Jack Hitt in
"Who Will Do Abortions Here?", New York
Times Magazine, January 18, 1998 -
"[Doing abortions] can make you feel
bad ... No matter how pro-choice you are,
it makes you feel low."[30]
 The Hippocratic oath forbids doctors from
performing abortionsHippocratic Oath,
attributed to the school of Hippocrates,
the “Father of Medicine,” circa 400 B.C. - "I
will give no deadly medicine to any one if
asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and
in like manner I will not give to a woman a
pessary to produce abortion."[31]
Yes
 It is contradictory to oppose abortion
while supporting capital
punishment.Loesje, Dutch Fictional
character "Active and International girl",
b.1983 - “How can anyone be against
abortion but for the death penalty”[32]
Eugenics: Is it wrong to equate abortion with Eugenics?
Yes
 The reproductive rights movement has no
genocidal drive: No serious proponents of
abortion are out to kill all embryos.
Furthermore, it is an insult to the memory
of the alive and conscious human beings
murdered by the Nazis to equate them
with embryos for anti-abortion
propaganda.
Crime: Does abortion help reduce crime?
No
 An abortion kills innocents; capital
punishment kills the guilty There is no
contradiction between opposing abortions
and supporting capital punishment, as
many conservatives do. An abortion
involves killing an innocent fetus, whereas
capital punishment involves killing a guilty,
terrible human being. One involves killing
an unborn baby with the potential to
contribute positively to society, the other
kills a human being that has demonstrated
themselves unfit to live in society. The real
inconsistency is in supporting abortion
while opposing capital punishment.
No
 Abortion is a form of eugenics and mass
murder Norman Haire, letter to the editor,
Birth Control Review, (July, 1930) - "For
those who cannot be educated,
sterilization or legalized abortion seems to
be the only remedy, for we certainly do
not want such stupid people to pollute the
race with stupid offspring. The defective
conditions of life call urgently for
improvement."[33]
Yes
 Abortion is more likely to wipe out the bad
than the good. This argument is based on
the premise that poverty and conditions
conducive to crime often correlate to
those that seek abortions. Stephen Levitt
of Freakonomics makes this argument. He
contends that the 1973 Roe. v. Wade
legalization of abortions led to the fall in
crime rates in the 80s and 90s across the
United States. The period of declining
crime, he says, correlated to the period
when those that were aborted might have
otherwise become criminals in society as
a result of their circumstances.
Racial equality: Is abortion important to maintaining racial equality?
No
 It is wrong to consider abortion a tool in
crime prevention Stephen J. Dubner and
Steven D. Levitt, from the essay Where
Have All the Criminals Gone? Want to
understand what made the crime rate
drop in the 1990s? Look back to the Roe v.
Wade decision in 1973 - "To discover that
abortion was one of the greatest crime-
lowering factors in American history is,
needless to say, jarring. It feels less
Darwinian than Swiftian; it calls to mind a
long ago dart attributed to G. K.
Chesterton: when there aren’t enough
hats to go around, the problem isn’t
solved by lopping off some heads. The
crime drop was, in the language of
economists, an 'unintended benefit' of
legalized abortion. But one need not
oppose abortion on moral or religious
grounds to feel shaken by the notion of a
private sadness being converted into a
public good."[34]
Yes
 Poor women are disproportionately
deprived choice when abortion is
illegal. Poor woman are most susceptible
to circumstances in which abortion is
necessary. If abortion is illegal, therefore,
this socio-economic group will be
disproportionately affected.
Activism: What are the arguments for and against certain activist-
styles in this debate?
Yes
 Pro-life militant groups act violently in
opposition to abortion. Many pro-life
activists act violently in opposition to
abortion. There are many examples of the
bombing of Planned Parenthood abortion
clinics and the harassment of abortion
workers. This is wrong, and undermines
the case against abortion.
Social: What are some of the other pro/con social utility/cost
arguments?
No
 Abortion disproportionately affects the
African American community
 Abortion ban may harm poor, but does not
change case against it Kristin Luker,
Dubious Conceptions (1996) - "..The fact
that only poor women are denied
reproductive freedom when abortions are
illegal is unpersuasive to those who
oppose abortion on moral grounds."
No
 Pro-lifers are justified in showing
gruesome images of abortions.These
images reflect the reality of what is being
done with abortions. They are, therefore,
appropriate to show, lest we believe that
it is better for women to be ignorant of
the reality when they are confronted with
the choice of having an abortion.
Yes
 Abortion might forestall the potential
birth of another Hitler. This is a counter-
argument to the notion that abortion
could have wiped out some of the
greatest social contributors in history; it
also could have wiped out some of the
worst individuals in history.
 If a fetus was defined as a "person", the
legal shifts would be too dramatic No
abortions would be permitted for any
reason, including rape or incest. Each
miscarriage would have to be
investigated. The legal consequences of
such an amendment would be massive.
 Anti-abortion activists love babies but
deprive poor children
 Abortion is important to reducing over-
population globally
 Illegalizing abortion will lead to more
children having children.
 Every child should be a wanted child
No
 Abortion forestalls the potential societal
contributions of a human being It may
even wipe out the life of an individual that
could have resolved, for example, the
Middle East crisis or cured cancer.
 Abortions are often chosen by minors or
young adults with immature judgment:
 Abortion undermines the dignity of life,
promotes violence Mother Teresa of
Calcutta, Missionary and Founder of the
Order of the Missionaries of Charity. Nobel
Prize for Peace in 1979. - "If we accept that
a mother can kill even her own child, how
can we tell other people to not kill each
other? Any country that accepts abortion
is not teaching its people to love, but to
use any violence to get what they
want."[35]