Jump to content

Abortion debate: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Added ref and link to contraception
Eddymason (talk | contribs)
350 edits
←Replaced content with 'how is babby formed how is babby formed how girl get pragnent? they need to do way instain mother who kill their babby because these babbies can't frigth bac...'
Line 1: Line 1:
how is babby formed
The '''abortion debate''' is the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of induced [[abortion]]. The sides involved in the debate are the self-described "[[Abortion-rights movements|pro-choice]]" movement (emphasizing the right of women to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy) and the self-described "[[Anti-abortion movements|pro-life]]" movement (emphasizing the right of the embryo or fetus to gestate and be born). Both of these ascriptions are considered [[loaded word|loaded terms]] in mainstream media where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred.<ref>For example: {{cite news|title=Wall Street Journal style guide: Vol. 23, No. 1|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2010/01/31/vol-23-no-1/|publisher=Wall Street Journal|accessdate=2011-11-04|date=2010-01-31}}</ref> Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position, with small numbers of anti-abortion advocates sometimes using [[anti-abortion violence|violence]].
how is babby formed

how girl get pragnent?
For many people, abortion is essentially a moral issue, involving issues as to [[beginning of human personhood|commencement of human personhood]], the [[Fetal rights|rights of the fetus]], the rights of self-determination of the woman, and/or whether anybody else can make choices concerning her body. The debate has become a political and legal issue in some countries with anti-abortion campaigners seeking to enact, maintain and expand [[Abortion law|anti-abortion laws]], while pro-choice campaigners seek the repeal or easing of such laws. Abortion laws vary considerably between jurisdictions, ranging from outright prohibition of the procedure being available on demand and being treated as a purely medical or health issue. For many women who seek an abortion, the issue may be economic (such as inability to provide for a new child and the impact on an existing family, as well as inability to work) as well as social consequences arising from factors such as age or marital status of the woman who finds herself pregnant. The discussion over abortion is also related to debate over the availability of [[contraception]] and [[sex education]].
they need to do way instain mother

who kill their babby
==Overview==
because these babbies can't frigth back?
In ancient times, abortion, along with [[infanticide]], was considered in the context of [[family planning]], gender selection, population control, and the property rights of the patriarch.<ref>See generally, "The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance", John Boswell ISBN 978-0-226-06712-4 Nov. 1998, Intro.</ref> Rarely were the rights of the prospective mother, much less the prospective child, taken into consideration.<ref>See generally Spivack, Carla, ''To Bring Down the Flowers: The Cultural Context of Abortion Law in Early Modern England''. Available at SSRN: [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1132482] Introduction</ref> Although generally legal, the morality of abortion, birth control and child abandonment (as a form of infanticide) was sometimes discussed. Then, as now, these discussions often concerned the nature of man, the existence of a soul, when life begins, and the [[beginning of human personhood]].
it was on the news this mroing

a woman in ar whose husband killed their three kids
While the practice of infanticide (as a form of family planning) has largely died out, child abandonment, [[birth control]], and abortion are still practiced; and their morality and legality continues to be debated. While modern debates about abortion retain some of the language of these older debates, the terminology has often acquired new meanings.
they are taking the three babbies back to New York to lady to rest

my pary are with the father
Any discussion of the putative [[personhood]] of the fetus will be complicated by the current legal status of children. They are not full persons<ref>[http://floridalegalanswers.com/dic/p.html "Person"]</ref> by law until they have reached the age of majority and are deemed able to enter into contracts and sue or be sued at law. However, for the past two centuries, they have been treated as persons for the limited purposes of [[Offence against the person]] law. Furthermore, as one [[New Jersey Superior Court]] judge noted,

<blockquote> If a fetus is a person, it is a person in very special circumstances – it exists entirely within the body of another much larger person and usually cannot be the object of direct action by another person.<ref>[http://www.napil.com/PersonalInjuryCaseLawDetail40130/Page2.htm ''State v Loce''] September 6, 1991</ref></blockquote>

This judgement discusses the logistic difficulties of treating a fetus as "the object of direct action."

Opinions in the current debate range from complete prohibition, even if done to save the woman's life,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html?partner=rss&emc=rss "Sister Margaret's Choice"] May 27, 2010</ref> to complete legalization with public funding, [[abortion in Canada|as in Canada]].<ref name="AmmerManson2009">{{cite book|author1=Christine Ammer|author2=JoAnn E. Manson|title=The Encyclopedia of Women's Health|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_MRDimrELCIC&pg=PA7|accessdate=February 24, 2012|date=February 2009|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=978-0-8160-7407-5|page=7}}</ref>

==Terminology==
Many of the terms used in the debate are seen as [[Framing (social sciences)|political framing]]: terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as [[liberty]] and [[Freedom (political)|freedom]], while suggesting that the opposition must be "''anti''-choice" or "''anti''-life" (alternatively "pro-''coercion''" or "pro-''death''").<ref>{{cite book |title=Handbook of Constructionist Research |author=Holstein and Gubrium |publisher= Guilford Press |year=2008 |isbn=}}</ref> Terms used by some in the debate to describe their opponents include "''pro-abortion''" or "''pro-abort''". However, these terms do not always reflect a political view or fall along a binary; in one [[Public Religion Research Institute]] poll, seven in ten Americans described themselves as "pro-choice" while almost two-thirds described themselves as "pro-life".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/06/committed-to-availability-conflicted-about-morality-what-the-millennial-generation-tells-us-about-the-future-of-the-abortion-debate-and-the-culture-wars/ |publisher=Public Religion Research Institute |title=Committed to Availability, Conflicted about Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars |date=June 9, 2011}}</ref>

Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the [[rights]] of the [[fetus]], pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the ''type'' of rights is not specified (whether [[Civil rights|civil]], [[Natural rights|natural]], or otherwise) or if it is simply ''assumed'' that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of [[begging the question]]).

The appropriate terms with which to designate the human organism prior to birth are also debated. The medical terms "[[embryo]]" and "[[fetus]]" are seen by some pro-life advocates as [[dehumanization|dehumanizing]].<ref>Brennan 'Dehumanizing the vulnerable' 2000</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Princeton Progressive Review |date=February 1996 |url=http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/naomi_wolf.html |author1=Getek, Kathryn |author2=Cunningham, Mark |title=A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing – Language and the Abortion Debate}}</ref>

==Political debate==
Politics refers to the processes, defined and limited through legal documents, by which decisions (laws) are made in governments. In politics, [[Civil rights|rights]] are the protections and privileges legally granted to citizens by the government. In a democracy, certain rights are considered to be [[inalienable]], and thus not subject to grant or withdrawal by government. Regarding [[abortion law]], the political debate usually surrounds a right to [[privacy]], and when or how a government may regulate abortion{{Citation needed|date=October 2013}}. There is abundant debate regarding the extent of abortion regulation. Some pro-choice advocates argue that it should be illegal for governments to regulate abortion any more than other medical practices.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bccla.org/positions/privateoff/72abortion.html |title=Abortion |accessdate=2007-05-24 |work=Positions |publisher=British Columbia Civil Liberties Association |quote=…rights call for complete legal freedom to secure an abortion, in the sense that the legal status of abortion should be the same as that of other medical services that a doctor provides to a patient}}</ref> On both sides of the debate, some argue{{Who|date=October 2011}} that governments should be permitted to prohibit elective abortions after the 20th week,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1455357&pageindex=2 |title=Abortion |accessdate=2007-05-24 |date=December 1973|work=Where We Stand—CMA Position Papers |publisher=California Medical Association |page=43 |quote=Good medical practice indicates that abortion should not be performed after the 20th week of pregnancy}}</ref> [[Point of fetal viability|viability]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/research/papers/legalpro.pdf |title=Abortion issues today – a position paper |accessdate=2007-05-24 |last=Lee |first=Ellie |author2=Ann Furedi |date=February 2002|format=PDF |work=Legal Issues for Pro-Choice Opinion – Abortion Law in Practice |publisher=University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NY, UK |page=2 |quote=While most people have no difficulty accepting the legality of abortion at early stages of pregnancy, fewer are so sure about their position as pregnancy progresses – especially when the fetus is perceived to be 'viable'
}}</ref> or the second [[wiktionary:trimester|trimester]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.amwa-doc.org/index.cfm?objectId=0A5BF4D4-D567-0B25-58C7E8584C98D43B |title=Abortion |accessdate=2007-05-24 |year=2000 |work=Positions |publisher=American Medical Women's Association |quote=The 1973 Supreme court decision ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' struck a fair balance between the responsibility of the state to protect a woman's right to make personal medical decisions and the responsibility of the state to protect the potentially viable third trimester fetus |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070920172711/http://www.amwa-doc.org/index.cfm?objectId=0A5BF4D4-D567-0B25-58C7E8584C98D43B <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-09-20}}</ref> Some want to prohibit all abortions, starting from conception.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/rptbgctc.html |title=Evaluation of the BGCT Christian Life Commission's "Abortion and the Christian Life" |accessdate=May 2007 |last=Johnston |first=Wm. Robert |date=2002-12-24 |work=Committee Report |publisher=First Baptist Church, Brownsville, Texas |quote=…the unique value that human life has, as a gift from God, regardless of stage of development or physical health, from the point of conception to the point of physical death| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20070411224102/http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/rptbgctc.html| archivedate= 11 April 2007 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>

===Privacy===
Even though the [[Privacy law|right to privacy]] is not explicitly stated in many constitutions of sovereign nations, many people see it as foundational to a functioning democracy. In general the right to privacy can be found to rest on the provisions of ''[[habeas corpus]]'', which first found official expression under Henry II in 11th century England, but has precedent in Anglo-Saxon law. This provision guarantees the right to freedom from arbitrary government interference, as well as due process of law. This conception of the right to privacy is operant in all countries which have adopted [[English common law]] through Acts of Reception. The [[Law of the United States]] rests on English common law by this means.

''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' has stated that the issue of bodily [[privacy]] is "the core" of the abortion debate.<ref name="Time">{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903358,00.html?promoid=googlep|title=Abortion and Privacy|accessdate=2007-05-25 |date=1972-03-13|publisher=TIME}}</ref> ''Time'' defined privacy, in relation to abortion, as the ability of a woman to "decide what happens to her own body".<ref name="Time"/> In political terms, privacy can be understood as a condition in which one is not observed or disturbed by government.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/privacy?view=uk |title=Privacy |accessdate=2007-05-24 |work=Compact Oxford English Dictionary |publisher=AskOxford.com}}</ref>

Traditionally, American courts have located the [[Privacy laws of the United States|right to privacy]] in the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]], [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Ninth Amendment]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], as well as the penumbra of the [[Bill of Rights]]. The landmark decision, ''[[Roe v Wade]]'' relied on the 14th Amendment which guarantees that federal rights shall be applied equally to all persons born in the United States. The 14th Amendment has given rise to the doctrine of [[Substantive due process]], which is said to guarantee various privacy rights, including the right to [http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Substantive+Due+Process bodily integrity]. In Canada, the courts have located privacy rights in the security of persons clause of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]. Section 7 of that charter echoes language used in the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], which also guarantees security of persons.

Eileen L. McDonagh explains privacy in US law:<blockquote>Although not widely understood, there are in fact two components to the right to bodily integrity and liberty: the right of a person to choose how to live her own life and the right of a person to consent to the effects of a private party on her bodily integrity and liberty. In the context of constitutional guarantees, a person's right to consent to "what is done" to her body is an even stronger right than a person's right to choose "what to do" with her life...Since there are two components to the right to bodily integrity and liberty--choice and consent--once the state designates the fetus as an entity separate from the woman, her right to terminate pregnancy stems not only from her right to make a choice about her liberty, but more fundamentally, from her right to consent to how the fetus, as another entity, affects her body and liberty.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3243/is_3_62/ai_n28731577/?tag=content;col1 "My body, my consent: securing the constitutional right to abortion funding"], Eileen L. McDonagh, ''Albany Law Review'', Spring 1999</ref></blockquote>

While governments are allowed to invade the privacy of their citizens in some cases, they are expected to protect privacy in all cases lacking a [[strict scrutiny|compelling state interest]]. In the US, the compelling state interest test has been developed in accordance with the standards of strict scrutiny. In ''Roe v Wade'', the Court decided that the state has an "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" from the point of viability on, but that prior to viability, the woman's fundamental rights are more compelling than that of the state.

[[Image:Roevwade.jpg|thumb|[[Albert Wynn]] and [[Gloria Feldt]] at the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] to rally in support of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.]]

===U.S. judicial involvement===
{{main|Abortion in the United States}}
''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' struck down state laws banning abortion in 1973. Over 20 [[:Category:United States abortion case law|cases]] have addressed abortion law in the [[Abortion in the United States|United States]], all of which upheld ''Roe v. Wade''. Since ''Roe'', abortion has been legal throughout the country, but states have placed varying regulations on it, from requiring [[Minors and abortion|parental involvement]] in a minor's abortion to restricting [[late-term abortion]]s.

Legal criticisms of the ''Roe'' decision address many points, among them are several suggesting that it is an overreach of judicial powers,<ref>{{cite journal| author= William Saletan |url= http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/May-June-2005/feature_saleton_mayjun05.msp |title= Unbecoming Justice Blackmun |work= Legal Affairs |date= May–June 2005}}</ref> or that it was not properly based on the Constitution,<ref>{{cite journal| author= Ely, John Hart. |url= http://www.timothypcarney.com/wages-wolf.htm |title= The Wages of Crying Wolf |publisher= [[Yale Law Journal]] |date= 1973 <!--accessdate= 4 Oct 09-->}}</ref> or that it is an example of [[judicial activism]] and that it should be overturned so that abortion law can be decided by legislatures.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/ |title=Why I Vetoed Contraception Bill |accessdate=2007-05-24 |last=Romney |first=Mitt |authorlink=Mitt Romney |date=2005-07-26 |publisher=The Boston Globe |quote=…avoiding the bitter battles engendered by 'one size fits all' judicial pronouncements. A [[federalist]] approach would allow such disputes to be settled by the citizens and elected representatives of each state, and appropriately defer to democratic governance| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20070429111010/http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/| archivedate= 29 April 2007 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> Justice [[Potter Stewart]], who joined with the majority, viewed the ''Roe'' opinion as "legislative" and asked that more consideration be paid to state legislatures.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://members.aol.com/abtrbng2/roememos.txt |title=Testimony of Douglas W. Kmiec |accessdate=2007-05-24 |last=Kmiec |first=Douglas W. |date=1996-04-22 |publisher=Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref>

Candidates competing for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election cited ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' as judicial activism.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ABORTIONPOSITIONS.html#democrats |title=The Presidential Candidates on Abortion |accessdate=2007-05-23 |last=Hossain |first=Farhana |author2=Ben Werschkul |year=2007 |publisher=New York Times}}</ref> In upholding the [[Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act]], ''Carhart'' is the first judicial opinion upholding a legal barrier to a specific abortion procedure.

{{quotation|"Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in ''Roe'' and those rare, comparable cases, its [505 U.S. 833, 867] decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution [...W]hatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance." — [[Majority opinion]] of [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]].<ref>{{cite book| author= Thomas R. Kearns | url= http://books.google.com/?id=J_9YVh0QmUQC&pg=PA8&dq=History,+memory,++controversy+to+end+their+national+division&q= | publisher= University of Michigan Press | title= History, Memory, and the Law| isbn= 978-0-472-08899-7| page= 340| date= August 2002}}</ref><ref name=Find1>{{cite court|litigants=[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] |vol=505 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=833 |year=1992 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=833}}</ref><br><br>
"Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish [over abortion]." — Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], "concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part".<ref name=Find1/>}}

[[Image:BentoXVI-37-10052007.jpg|thumb|"No to abortion" at a 2007 meeting with [[Pope Benedict XVI]] in [[São Paulo]], Brazil.]]

===Canadian judicial involvement===
{{Main|Abortion in Canada}}
With ''[[R v. Morgentaler]]'', the Supreme Court of Canada removed abortion from the Criminal Code. Relying on the security of person clause of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]], the court determined that, while the state has an interest in protecting the fetus "at some point", this interest cannot override that of the pregnant woman because: "the right to security of the person of a pregnant woman was infringed more than was required to achieve the objective of protecting the fetus, and the means were not reasonable." The only laws currently governing abortion in Canada are those which govern other medical procedures, such as those regulating licencing of facilities, the training of medical personnel, and the like.

Because the courts did not specifically establish abortion as a right, Parliament has leave to legislate on this aspect of the matter; and in 1989, the Progressive Conservative government attempted to do just that. A bill was introduced that would allow abortion only if two doctors certified that the woman's health was in danger. This bill passed the House of Commons but was defeated by a tie vote in the Senate.

Several additional cases have considered further issues.

Although the courts have not ruled on the question of fetal personhood, the question has been raised in two cases, ''[[Tremblay v. Daigle]]'' and ''[[R. v. Sullivan]]''. Both cases relied on the [[born alive rule]], inherited from English common law, to determine that the fetus was not a person at law.

Two further cases are notable: ''[[Dobson (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dobson]]'', and ''Winnipeg Child & Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G . (D.F.), [I9971 3 S.C.R. 925 M]'', which dismissed so-called fetal abuse charges.

===Effects of legalization/illegalization===
Pro-choice advocates argue that illegalization of abortion increases the incidence of [[unsafe abortion]]s, as the availability of professional abortion services decreases, and leads to increased [[maternal mortality]]. According to a global study collaboratively conducted by the [[World Health Organization]] and the [[Guttmacher Institute]], most unsafe abortions occur [[abortion law|where abortion is illegal]].<ref>{{Cite news
| last=Rosenthal
| first=Elisabeth
|date=October 2007
| title= Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare
| work= [[New York Times]]
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
| accessdate=June 30, 2009 }}
</ref>

The [[Legalized abortion and crime effect|effect on crime of legalized abortion]] is a subject of controversy, with proponents of the theory generally arguing that "unwanted children" are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime.

Economist [[George Akerlof]] has argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States contributed to a declining sense of paternal duty among biological fathers and to a decline in [[legitimacy (law)|shotgun weddings]], even when women chose childbirth over abortion, and thus to an increase rather than a decrease in the rate of children born to unwed mothers.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.2307/2946680 |last=Akerlof |first=George A. |last2=Yellen |first2=Janet |authorlink2=Janet Yellen |last3=Katz |first3=Lawrence F. |authorlink3=Lawrence F. Katz |lastauthoramp=yes |year=1996 |title=An analysis on out-of-wedlock childbearing in the United States |journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics |volume=111 |issue=2 |pages=277–317 |jstor=2946680 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1111/1468-0297.00288 |last=Akerlof |first=George A. |year=1998 |title=Men without children |journal=[[The Economic Journal]] |volume=108 |issue=447 |pages=287–309 |jstor=2565562 }}</ref>

===Anti-abortion violence===
{{main|Anti-abortion violence}}
Anti-abortion violence is [[violence]] committed against individuals and organizations that provide [[abortion]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Jelen |first= Ted G |year=1998 |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/abortion.htm |title=Abortion |work=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society |location=Walnut Creek, California |publisher=AltaMira Press}}.</ref> Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, in the form of [[vandalism]]; crimes against people, including [[kidnapping]], [[stalking]], [[assault]], [[attempted murder]], and [[murder]]; and crimes affecting both people and property, including [[arson]] and bombings. Anti-abortion violence is most frequently committed in the United States,{{citation needed|date=December 2010}} though it has also occurred in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. G. Davidson Smith of [[Canadian Security Intelligence Service]] defined anti-abortion violence as "[[single issue terrorism]]".<ref name="csis">{{cite web |author=Smith, G. Davidson (Tim) |publisher=Canadian Security Intelligence Service |year=1998 |url=http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com74.asp |title=Single Issue Terrorism Commentary |accessdate=June 9, 2006| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20060714173515/http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com74.asp| archivedate= July 14, 2006 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}.</ref> A study of 1982–87 violence considered the incidents "limited political" or "subrevolutionary" terrorism.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wilson | first1 = Michele | last2 = Lynxwiler | first2 = John | year = 1988 | title = Abortion clinic violence as terrorism | url = | journal = Studies in Conflict & Terrorism | volume = 11 | issue = 4| pages = 263–273 | doi=10.1080/10576108808435717}}</ref>

Some of those opposed to abortion have sometimes resorted to very public demonstrations of violence in an effort to achieve their objective of curbing abortions. Those who engage in or support such actions defend the [[use of force]]—as [[justifiable homicide]] or [[Self-defense (theory)|defense of others]]—in the interest of protecting the life of the [[fetus]].<ref name="okeefe">{{cite news|last=O'Keefe |first=Mark |date=January 24, 1999 |title=Anarchy in the name of God |work=[[The Oregonian]] <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}.</ref> In the 1980s political scientist David C. Nice associated anti-abortion violence with U.S. states having weaker social restraints, higher abortion rates, less confidence in state government, and more violence by men against women.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Nice |first=David C. |date=February 1988 |title=Abortion Clinic Bombings as Political Violence |journal=American Journal of Political Science |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=178–195 |doi=10.2307/2111316 |jstor=2111316}}</ref> Anti-abortion violence has been described as a form of [[Christian terrorism]].<ref name="interfaith">
*{{Cite book |title=Religion and terrorism: an interfaith perspective |first=Aref M. |last=Al-Khattar |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=V1xukwRq2cUC&pg=PA58 |pages=58–59 |year=2003 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group}}
*{{Cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RSzyEx4do48C&pg=PA116 |title=Inside terrorism |first=Bruce |last=Hoffman |year=2006 |publisher=Columbia University Press |page=116 |authorlink=Bruce Hoffman}}
*{{Cite book |first=Christopher C. |last=Harmon |title=Terrorism today |year=2000 |publisher=Psychology Press |page=42 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=F4AYGALitgsC&pg=PA42}}
*{{Cite book |title=Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence |first=Mark |last=Juergensmeyer |authorlink=Mark Juergensmeyer |page=4,19 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lpb1mbaHjGQC&pg=PA19 |year=2003 |publisher=University of California Press}}
*{{Cite book |title=Handbook of death & dying, Volume 1 |first=Clifton D. |last=Bryant |page=243 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3z9EpgisKOgC&pg=PA243 |publisher=SAGE |year=2003}}
*{{Cite book |title=The Dialogue Comes of Age: Christian Encounters with Other Traditions |publisher=Fortress Press |page=90 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Mbqpcg29LYsC&pg=PA90 |year=2010 |first=Ward M. |last=McAfee}}
*{{Cite book |title=Introduction to geopolitics |year=2006 |publisher=Psychology Press |first=Colin Robert |last=Flint |page=172 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4G4lsXFE9bUC&pg=PA172}}
* {{Cite book |title=Humanity: an introduction to cultural anthropology |last=Peoples |first=James |first2=Garrick |last2=Bailey |publisher=Cengage |year=2008 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=JBPZ3wfYEF0C&pg=PA371 |page=371}}
*{{Cite book |last=Dolnik |first=Adam |first2=Rohan |last2=Gunaratna |authorlink2=Rohan Gunaratna |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jZIXOlW7pgwC&pg=PA82 |title=The politics of terrorism: a survey |year=2006 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |chapter=On the Nature of Religious Terrorism}}
* ''The terrorism ahead: confronting transnational violence in the twenty-first century'', Paul J. Smith, p 94
* ''Religion and Politics in America: The Rise of Christian Evangelists'', Muhammad Arif Zakaullah, p 109
*''Terrorism: An Investigator's Handbook'', William E. Dyson, p 43
* ''Encyclopedia of terrorism'', Cindy C. Combs, Martin W. Slann, p 13
* ''Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States'', Jennifer Jefferis, p 40
</ref> Some supporters of such violence embrace this designation.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Armed for Life: The Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States |first=Jennifer |last=Jefferis |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MNuQO-TWbt8C&pg=PA40 |page=40 |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2011}}
</ref>

==Moral issues==
{{POV-check|date=January 2009}}
{{Main|Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate|}}
[[Ethics]] is "[[moral philosophy]]", or the study of [[values]] and the analysis of [[right and wrong]]. The ethical debate over abortion usually surrounds the issues of whether a fetus has [[rights]], in particular a [[right to life]], and whether the pregnant woman's rights over her own body justify abortion ''even if'' the fetus has a right to life. For many, there is a strong association between [[Religion and abortion|religion and abortion ethics]].

Ethical question regarding abortion usually include:

* Are embryos, zygotes and fetuses "persons" worthy of legal protections?
* Should the ''potential'' to be a person give embryos, zygotes and fetuses a [[right to life]]?
* Does a fetus gain rights as it gets closer to birth?
* Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body?
* Is abortion acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or contraception failure?
* Is abortion acceptable in cases where the fetus is deformed?
* Is abortion acceptable in cases where if the pregnancy were to continue, it would pose a direct threat to the life of the mother?<ref name=routledge>[http://books.google.com/books?id=fnbtxGXu39sC&pg=PA21&dq=ethics+abortion#v=onepage&q=abortion&f=false Ethics: contemporary readings] By Harry J. Gensler, Earl W. Spurgin, James Swindal</ref><ref name=complete>[http://books.google.com/books?id=0B4WNVdK_Q4C&pg=PA212&dq=ethics+abortion#v=onepage&q=ethics%20abortion&f=false The complete idiot's guide to understanding ethics] By David Ingram, Jennifer A. Parks</ref>

===Personhood===
There are differences of opinion as whether, and if so the point in time when, a zygote/embryo/fetus [[Beginning of human personhood|acquires "personhood"]]. Traditionally, the concept of [[personhood]] entailed the concept of [[Soul (spirit)|soul]], a [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of [[human being]]. However, in the "modern" world, the concepts of [[subjectivity]] and [[intersubjectivity]], [[person]]hood, [[mind]], and [[self]] have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered the domain of the "soul".<ref>[[Charles Taylor (philosopher)|Charles Taylor]], ''Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity'', Harvard University Press, 1992.</ref><ref>[[Michel Foucault]], ''The Hermeneutics of the Subject'', New York: Picador, 2005.</ref> Thus, while the historical question has been: when does the [[ensoulment|soul enter the body]], in modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood.<ref>The question could also be put historically. The concept of "personhood" is of fairly recent vintage, and cannot be found in the 1828 edition of [http://1828.mshaffer.com/ 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language], nor even as late as [http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters 1913]. A search in dictionaries and encyclopedia for the term "personhood" generally redirects to "person". The American Heritage Dictionary at Yahoo has: "The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality."</ref>

Related issues attached to the question of the beginning of human personhood include the legal status, bodily integrity, and subjectivity of the pregnant woman<ref>[[Susan Bordo]], "Are Mothers Persons?", ''Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body'', Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2003, 71-97.</ref> and the philosophical concept of "natality" (i.e. "the distinctively human capacity to initiate a new beginning", which a new human life embodies).<ref>[[Nikolas Kompridis]], "The Idea of a New Beginning: A romantic source of normativity and freedom," ''Philosophical Romanticism'', New York: Routledge, 2006, 48-49.</ref>

===Related issues ===
Many of the views in favor of and against the right to abortion are framed in the context of other debates whose arguments and implications relate directly to the topic of abortion.

====Fetal pain====
{{Main|Neonatal perception}}
{{update|section|date=December 2011}}
Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are part of a larger debate about abortion. A 2005 multidisciplinary systematic review in ''[[Journal of the American Medical Association|JAMA]]'' in the area of fetal development found that a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the sixth month of pregnancy.<ref name="Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA 2005 947-954" /><ref name="MSNBC pain">{{cite news |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/ |title=Study: Fetus feels no pain until third trimester |agency=Associated Press |publisher=MSNBC |date=2005-08-24 |accessdate=2008-04-13 }}</ref> Developmental [[neurobiology|neurobiologists]] suspect that the establishment of [[Human thalamus|thalamocortical]] connections (at about 26 weeks) may be critical to fetal perception of pain.<ref name="Johnson">{{cite book |author=Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632042877&id=MzZRuSQ5UeEC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&ots=cx0KcmuOYk&dq=%22emerging+consensus+among+developmental+neurobiologists+that+the+establishment+%22&num=100&sig=8I9DY9KPpuSPNYvGI3sEV2bmKsA |page=215 |title=Essential reproduction |accessdate=2007-02-21 |isbn=0632042877 }}</ref> However, legislation was proposed by anti-abortion advocates that would require abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during an abortion procedure.<ref>{{cite news |author=Weisman, Jonathan |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401089.html |title=House to Consider Abortion Anesthesia Bill |work=[[Washington Post]] |date=2006-12-05|accessdate=2007-02-06}}</ref>

The 2005 JAMA review concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the [[third trimester]] of pregnancy.<ref name="Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA 2005 947-954">{{cite journal |author=Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA |title=Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence |journal=JAMA |volume=294 |issue=8 |pages=947–954 |year=2005 |pmid=16118385 |doi=10.1001/jama.294.8.947}}</ref> However a number of medical critics have since disputed these conclusions.<ref name="MSNBC pain" /><ref>{{cite journal |author=Lowery CL, Hardman MP, Manning N, Hall RW, Anand KJS |title=Neurodevelopmental changes of fetal pain |journal=Seminars in Perinatology |volume=31 |issue=5 |pages=275–282 |year=2007 |url=http://www.seminperinat.com/article/PIIS0146000507000687/fulltext |doi=10.1053/j.semperi.2007.07.004 |pmid=17905181}}</ref> Other researchers such as Anand and Fisk have challenged the idea that pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks, positing instead that pain can be felt at around 20 weeks.<ref name="NYT pain">{{cite news|author=Paul, Annie |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print |title=The First Ache |work=New York Times |date=2008-02-10 |accessdate=2009-03-21 }}</ref> Anand's suggestion is disputed in a March 2010 report on [http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice Fetal Awareness] published by a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, citing a lack of evidence or rationale. Page 20 of the report definitively states that the fetus cannot feel pain prior to week 24. Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, leaving it "impossible to know" when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.<ref>{{cite book |author=Johnson, Martin and Everitt, Barry |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632042877&id=MzZRuSQ5UeEC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&ots=cx0KcmuOYk&dq=%22emerging+consensus+among+developmental+neurobiologists+that+the+establishment+%22&num=100&sig=8I9DY9KPpuSPNYvGI3sEV2bmKsA |page=216|title=Essential reproduction |publisher=Blackwell |year=2000 |quote=The multidimensionality of pain perception, involving sensory, emotional, and cognitive factors may in itself be the basis of conscious, painful experience, but it will remain difficult to attribute this to a fetus at any particular developmental age. |accessdate=2007-02-21}}</ref>

Wendy Savage—press officer, Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion—considers the question to be irrelevant. In a 1997 letter to the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'', [http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7088/1201.1.extract April 1997], she noted that the majority of surgical abortions in Britain were performed under general anesthesia which affects the fetus, and considers the discussion "to be unhelpful to women and to the scientific debate." Others caution against unnecessary use of fetal anesthetic during abortion, as it poses potential health risks to the pregnant woman.<ref name="Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA 2005 947-954"/> David Mellor and colleagues have noted that the fetal brain is already awash in naturally occurring chemicals that keep it sedated and anesthetized until birth.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mellor | first1 = D.J. | last2 = Diesch | first2 = T.J. | last3 = Gunn | first3 = A.J. | last4 = Bennet | first4 = L. | year = 2005 | title = The importance of 'awareness' for understanding fetal pain | pmid=16269314 | journal = Brain Research Reviews | volume = 49 | issue = 3| pages = 455–71 | doi=10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.01.006}}</ref> At least one anesthesia researcher has suggested the fetal pain legislation may make abortions harder to obtain because abortion clinics lack the equipment and expertise to supply fetal anesthesia. Anesthesia is administered directly to fetuses only while they are undergoing surgery.<ref name="NYT pain"/>

====Fetal personhood====
{{Main|Beginning of human personhood}}
Although the two main sides of the abortion debate tend to agree that a human fetus is biologically and genetically human (that is, of the human species), they often differ in their view on whether or not a human fetus is, in any of various ways, a ''[[person]]''. Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent [[human]] [[person]]<ref>Warren, 1973</ref> or because a fetus is a potential life that will, in most cases, develop into a fully functional human being.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5187 |title=Creating a Potential Life? |first=Gregory |last=Koukl |year=1999 |work= Stand to Reason}}</ref> Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between ''human being'' and ''human person'', arguing that while the fetus is ''innocent'' and ''biologically human'', it is not a ''person'' with a ''right to life''.<ref>Warren 1973: 457. See also Tooley 1972: 40–43; Singer 2000: 126–28 and 155–156; and [[Consciousness#Consciousness as the basis of personal identity|John Locke]]. The term ''person'' may be used to denote a ''psychological'' property (being rational and self-conscious), a ''moral'' property (having a right to life), or both.</ref> In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of [[personhood]]. For example, [[Mary Ann Warren]] suggests [[consciousness]] (at least the capacity to feel pain), [[reasoning]], [[self-motivation]], the ability to [[Communication|communicate]], and [[self-awareness]].<ref>Warren 1973: 458.</ref> According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits ''none'' of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person. Warren concludes that as the fetus satisfies only one criterion, consciousness (and this only after it becomes [[fetal pain|susceptible to pain]]),<ref>Warren 1973: 458–459</ref> the fetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible. Other philosophers apply similar criteria, concluding that a fetus lacks a right to life because it lacks [[Neural oscillation|brain waves]] or higher brain function,<ref>{{Cite journal
| last1 = Jones | first1 = D. G.
| title = The problematic symmetry between brain birth and brain death
| doi = 10.1136/jme.24.4.237
| journal = Journal of Medical Ethics
| volume = 24
| issue = 4
| pages = 237–242
| year = 1998
| pmid = 9752625
| pmc =1377672
| url = http://jme.bmj.com/content/24/4/237.full.pdf
}}</ref> self-consciousness,<ref>Tooley 1972: 44.</ref> rationality,<ref>Singer 2000: 128 and 156–157.</ref> and autonomy.<ref>McMahan 2002: 260</ref> These lists diverge over precisely ''which'' features confer a right to life,<ref>It is similarly unclear ''which'' features one must have a natural capacity for, in order to have a right to life (cf Schwarz 1990: 105–109), or ''which'' features constitute a "future like ours".</ref> but tend to propose various ''developed'' psychological or physiological features not found in fetuses.

Critics of this typically argue that some of the proposed criteria for personhood would disqualify two classes of ''born'' human beings – reversibly [[coma]]tose patients, and human infants – from having a right to life, since they, like fetuses, are not self-conscious, do not communicate, and so on.<ref>Marquis 1989: 197; Schwarz 1990: 89</ref> Defenders of the proposed criteria may respond that the reversibly comatose ''do'' satisfy the relevant criteria because they "retain all their ''unconscious'' mental states".<ref>Stretton 2004: 267, original emphasis; see also Singer 2000: 137; Boonin 2003: 64–70</ref> or at least some higher brain function (brain waves). Warren concedes that infants are not "persons" by her proposed criteria,<ref>Warren 1982</ref> and on that basis she and others concede that [[infanticide]] could be morally acceptable under some circumstances (for example if the infant is severely disabled<ref>Singer 2000: 186–193</ref> or in order to save the lives of several other infants<ref>McMahan 2002: 359–360</ref>). Critics may see such concessions as an indication that the right to life cannot be adequately defined by reference to developed psychological features{{citation needed|date=March 2014}}.

An alternative approach is to base personhood or the right to life on a being's ''natural'' or ''inherent'' capacities. On this approach, a being [[Essential property|essentially]] has a right to life if it has a ''natural capacity'' to develop the relevant psychological features; and, since human beings do have this natural capacity, they essentially have a right to life beginning at [[Conception (biology)|conception]] (or whenever they come into existence).<ref>Lee 1996 and 2004: Schwarz 1990: 91–93.</ref> Critics of this position argue that mere genetic potential is not a plausible basis for respect (or for the right to life), and that basing a right to life on natural capacities would lead to the counterintuitive position that [[anencephaly|anencephalic]] infants, irreversibly comatose patients, and brain-dead patients kept alive on a [[medical ventilator]], are all persons with a right to life.<ref>Stretton 2004: 274–281.</ref> Respondents to this criticism argue that the noted human cases in fact would not be classified as persons as they do not have a natural capacity to develop any psychological features.<ref>Schwarz 1990: 52.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.prolifeadvocate.us/persnbw2.html |title=Christian Research Journal, Summer 1991, page 28 – When Does a Human Become a Person?|accessdate=2010-02-18 |last=Beckwith |first=Francis J. |year=1991}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cedarville.edu/~/media/Files/PDF/Center-for-Bioethics/conception.pdf |format=PDF|title=Ethics & Medicine, volume 19:1 – The conception view of personhood: a review |accessdate=2014-04-01 |last=Sullivan|first=Dennis M|year=2003}}</ref> Also, in a view that favors benefiting even unconceived but [[potential person|potential future persons]], it has been argued as justified to abort an [[unintended pregnancy]] in favor for conceiving a new child later in better conditions.<ref name=Savulescu2002>''Abortion, embryo destruction and the future of value argument'' By J Savulescu. J Med Ethics 2002 28: 133-135. {{doi|10.1136/jme.28.3.133}}</ref>
[[Image:Pro-Life Demonstration at Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|Members of [[Bound4LIFE]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] symbolically cover their mouths with red tape.]]

Philosophers such as [[Aquinas]] use the concept of [[individuation]]. They argue that abortion is not permissible from the point at which individual human identity is realized. [[Anthony Kenny]] argues that this can be derived from everyday beliefs and language and one can legitimately say "if my mother had had an abortion six months into her pregnancy, she would have killed me" then one can reasonably infer that at six months the "me" in question would have been an existing person with a valid claim to life. Since division of the zygote into twins through the process of [[twins|monozygotic twinning]] can occur until the fourteenth day of pregnancy, Kenny argues that individual identity is obtained at this point and thus abortion is not permissible after two weeks.<ref>A. Kenny, Reason and Religion: Essays in Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), 1987</ref>

===Arguments for abortion rights which do not depend on fetal non-personhood===

====Bodily rights====
An argument first presented by [[Judith Jarvis Thomson]] states that ''even if'' the fetus is a person and has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body and its life-support functions. Thomson's variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and forcing a person to allow his body to be used to maintain blood [[homeostasis]] (as a [[dialysis]] machine is used) for another person suffering from [[kidney failure]]. It is argued that just as it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's kidneys, so it is permissible to abort the fetus (who similarly, it is said, has no right to use one's body's life-support functions against one's will).<ref>http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm</ref>

Critics of this argument generally argue that there are morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario. For example, it is argued that the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger;<ref>Schwarz 1990; McMahan 2002</ref> that abortion ''kills'' the fetus rather than merely letting it die;<ref>Schwarz 1990; McMahan 2002; Lee 1996</ref> and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse, the woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body,<ref>Warren 1973</ref> or has a duty to allow it to use her body since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body.<ref>McMahan 2002</ref> Some writers defend the analogy against these objections, arguing that the disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have claimed.<ref>Boonin 2003: ch 4</ref>

Alternative scenarios have been put forth as more accurate and realistic representations of the moral issues present in abortion. [[John Noonan]] proposes the scenario of a family who was found to be liable for frostbite finger loss suffered by a dinner guest whom they refused to allow to stay overnight, although it was very cold outside and the guest showed signs of being sick. It is argued that just as it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation for the guest to protect him from physical harm, it would not be permissible to refuse temporary accommodation of a fetus.<ref>''The Morality of abortion: legal and historical perspectives'' John T. Noonan, Harvard University Press, 1970 ISBN 0-674-58725-1</ref>

Other critics claim that there is a difference between artificial and extraordinary means of preservation, such as medical treatment, kidney dialysis, and blood transfusions, and normal and natural means of preservation, such as gestation, childbirth, and breastfeeding. They argue that if a baby was born into an environment in which there was no replacement available for her mother's breast milk, and the baby would either breastfeed or starve, the mother would have to allow the baby to breastfeed. But the mother would never have to give the baby a blood transfusion, no matter what the circumstances were. The difference between breastfeeding in that scenario and blood transfusions is the difference between using your body as a kidney dialysis machine, and gestation and childbirth.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAA025.pdf |format=PDF|journal=Christian Research Journal |volume=30 |issue=4 |title=Suffer the violinist: Why the pro-abortion argument from bodily autonomy fails |accessdate=2009-10-25 |last=Poupard |first=Richard J |year=2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Koukl G |author2=Klusendorf S |title=Making Abortion Unthinkable: The Art of Pro-Life Persuasion |publisher=STR Press |location=California |year=2001 |page=86}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author1=Nathanson, Bernard |author2=Ostling, Richard |title=Aborting America |publisher=Double Day |location=Garden City |year=1979 |isbn=0-385-14461-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite video | people = [[Peter Kreeft|Kreeft, Peter]]; Boonin, David | title = "Is Abortion Morally Justifiable in a Free Society?" Public debate at [[Yale University]] | medium = Audio | publisher = [[Intercollegiate Studies Institute]] | location = http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=search&SSub=title&SFor=Is%20Abortion%20Morally%20Justifiable%20in%20a%20Free%20Society? |date= 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Arthur, John |title=The Unfinished Constitution: Philosophy and Constitutional Practice |publisher=Wadsworth |year=1989 |pages=198–200}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |url=http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Thomson.pdf |format=PDF|journal=International Philosophical Quarterly |volume=32 |issue=1 |title=Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist |accessdate=2009-10-10 |last=Beckwith |first=Francis |date=March 1992}}</ref>

====Sexual emancipation and equality====
Margaret Sanger wrote: "No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml#h4</ref> Denying the right to abortion can be construed from this perspective as a form of [[oppression of women|female oppression]] under a [[patriarchy|patriarchal system]], perpetuating inequality between the sexes. Among pro-choice advocates, sexual-equality discussion often involves the additional debate regarding to what degree the potential father should have a choice in deciding whether or not to abort the developing child.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}

===Arguments against the right to abortion===

====Discrimination====
The book ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' presents the argument that abortion involves unjust [[discrimination]] against the unborn. According to this argument, those who deny that fetuses have a right to life do not value ''all'' human life, but instead select arbitrary characteristics (such as particular levels of physical or psychological development) as giving some human beings more value or rights than others.<ref>"Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" (1983), by Ronald Reagan, William P. Clark, Brian P. Johnston, Wanda Franz. New Regency Pub, ISBN 0-9641125-3-1</ref>

In contrast, philosophers who define the right to life by reference to particular levels of physical or psychological development typically maintain that such characteristics are morally relevant,<ref>Singer 2000: 217–18; McMahan 2002: 242–3; Boonin 2003: 126</ref> and reject the assumption that all human life necessarily has value (or that membership in the species ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' is in itself morally relevant).<ref>Singer 2000: 221–2; McMahan 2002: 214; Boonin 2003: 25</ref>

====Deprivation====
{{Further2|[[Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate#The deprivation argument|Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate]]}}
The argument of deprivation states that abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of a valuable future.<ref>Marquis 1989. See also Stone 1987.</ref> On this account, killing an ''adult'' human being is wrong because it deprives the victim of a ''future like ours''—a future containing highly valuable or desirable experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments.<ref>Marquis 1989: 189–190</ref> If a being has such a future, then (according to the argument) killing that being would seriously harm it and hence would be seriously wrong.<ref>Marquis 1989: 190. The type of wrongness appealed to here is presumptive or [[prima facie]] wrongness: it may be overridden in exceptional circumstances.</ref> But since a fetus does have such a future, the "overwhelming majority" of deliberate abortions are placed in the "same moral category" as killing an innocent adult human being.<ref>Marquis 1989: 183.</ref> Not ''all'' abortions are unjustified according to this argument: abortion would be justified if the same justification could be applied to killing an adult human.

Criticism of this line of reasoning follows several threads. Some reject the argument on grounds relating to [[personal identity]], holding that the fetus is ''not the same entity'' as the adult into which it will develop, and thus that the fetus does not have a "future like ours" in the required sense.<ref>McMahan 2002: ch 1.</ref> Others grant that the fetus has a future like ours, but argue that being deprived of this future is not a significant harm or a significant wrong to the fetus, because there are relatively few ''psychological connections'' (continuations of memory, belief, desire and the like) between the fetus as it is now and the adult into which it will develop.<ref>McMahan 2002: 271; Stretton 2004: 171–179</ref> Another criticism is that the argument creates inequalities in the wrongness of killing:<ref>Stretton 2004: 250–260; see also McMahan 2002: 234–235 and 271</ref> as the futures of some people appear to be far more valuable or desirable than the futures of other people, the argument appears to entail that some killings are far more ''wrong'' than others, or that some people have a far stronger ''right to life'' than others—a conclusion that is taken to be counterintuitive or unacceptable.

[[Image:March for Women's Lives detail.jpg|thumb|The 2004 [[March for Women's Lives]] near the [[Washington Monument]].]]

====Argument from uncertainty====
Some pro-life supporters argue that if there is uncertainty as to whether the fetus has a right to life, then having an abortion is equivalent to consciously taking the risk of killing another. According to this argument, if it is not known for certain whether something (such as the fetus) has a right to life, then it is reckless, and morally wrong, to treat that thing as if it ''lacks'' a right to life (for example by killing it).<ref>Schwarz 1990: 58–9; Beckwith 2007: 60–1; ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' (1983), by Ronald Reagan, William P. Clark, Brian P. Johnston, Wanda Franz. New Regency Pub, ISBN 0-9641125-3-1</ref> This would place abortion in the same moral category as [[manslaughter]] (if it turns out that the fetus has a right to life) or certain forms of [[criminal negligence]] (if it turns out that the fetus does not have a right to life).<ref>''Three approaches to abortion'' (2002), by Peter Kreeft, ISBN 0-89870-915-6</ref>

David Boonin replies that if this kind of argument were correct, then the killing of nonhuman animals and plants would also be morally wrong, because (Boonin contends) it is not known for certain that such beings lack a right to life.<ref>Boonin 2003: 314–15</ref> Boonin also argues that arguments from uncertainty fail because the mere fact that one might be mistaken in finding certain arguments persuasive (for example, arguments for the claim that the fetus lacks a right to life) does not mean that one should act contrary to those arguments or assume them to be mistaken.<ref>Boonin 2003: 323</ref>

====Religious beliefs====
{{Main|Religion and abortion}}
Each religion has many varying views on the moral implications of abortion. These views can often be in direct opposition to each other.<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Topic-Page-Abortion.html Resources for Religious Views on Abortion on Patheos] {{Dead link|date=June 2011}}</ref> Muslims regard abortion as ''[[haram]]'' meaning forbidden. Muslims typically cite the Quranic verse 17:32 which states that a fetus shouldn't be aborted out of fear of poverty.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml Sanctity of life] retrieved 17 October 2013</ref> Pro-life Christians support their views with Scripture references such as that of [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 1:15; [[Book of Jeremiah|Jeremiah]] 1:4–5; [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] 25:21–23; [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 1:18; and [[Psalm]] 139:13–16. [[Catholic Church|The Roman Catholic Church]] believes that human life begins at conception as does the right to life; thus, abortion is considered immoral.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm |title= Article 5: The Fifth Commandment |accessdate=7 June 2011 |work=Catechism of the Catholic Church| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20110514012545/http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm| archivedate= 14 May 2011 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> The Church of England also considers abortion to be morally wrong, though their position admits abortion when "the continuance of a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abortion_1.shtml |title= Abortion: the Church of England view |accessdate=3 August 2009 |work=Religion & Ethics}}</ref>

===Other factors===

====Mexico City Policy====
{{Main|Mexico City Policy}}
The Mexico City policy—also known as the "Global Gag Rule"—required any non-governmental organization receiving U.S. government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. This had a significant effect on the health policies of many nations across the globe. The Mexico City Policy was instituted under [[Ronald Reagan|President Reagan]], suspended under [[Bill Clinton|President Clinton]], reinstated by [[George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]],<ref>{{cite book |title=Reproductive Rights in a Global Context |last= Knudsen |first=Lara |year=2006 |publisher= Vanderbilt University Press |isbn=978-0-8265-1528-5 |page=7 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=b3thCcdyScsC&dq=reproductive+rights }}</ref> and suspended again by [[Barack Obama|President Barack Obama]] on January 24, 2009.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7847651.stm |title=Obama lifts ban on abortion funds |accessdate=2009-01-24 |work= |publisher=BBC News |date=2009-01-24 | archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20090123205526/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7847651.stm| archivedate= 23 January 2009 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>

====Public opinion====
{{Main|Societal attitudes towards abortion}}

A number of opinion polls around the world have explored public opinion regarding the issue of abortion. Results have varied from poll to poll, country to country, and region to region, while varying with regard to different aspects of the issue.

A May 2005 survey examined attitudes toward abortion in 10 European countries, asking respondents whether they agreed with the statement, "If a woman doesn't want children, she should be allowed to have an abortion". The highest level of approval was 81% (in the Czech Republic); the lowest was 47% (in Poland).<ref>TNS Sofres. (May 2005). [http://www.thebrusselsconnection.be/tbc/upload/attachments/European%20Values%20Overall%20EN.pdf European Values]. Retrieved January 11, 2007.</ref>

In North America, a December 2001 poll surveyed [[Abortion in Canada#Opinion polls|Canadian opinion on abortion]], asking in what circumstances they believe abortion should be permitted; 32% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 52% that it should be legal in certain circumstances, and 14% that it should be legal in no circumstances. A similar poll in April 2009 surveyed people in the United States about [[Abortion in the United States#Public opinion|U.S. opinion on abortion]]; 18% said that abortion should be "legal in all cases", 28% said that abortion should be "legal in most cases", 28% said abortion should be "illegal in most cases" and 16% said abortion should be "illegal in all cases".<ref>''[http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1212/abortion-gun-control-opinion-gender-gap Pew Research Center]''. (2009). Retrieved 2009-05-02.</ref> A November 2005 poll in Mexico found that 73.4% think abortion should not be legalized while 11.2% think it should.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mexicans Support Status Quo on Social Issues |publisher=[[Angus Reid Global Monitor]] |date=2005-12-01 |url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/10042 |accessdate=2008-12-09| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20090103231252/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/10042| archivedate= 3 January 2009 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>

Of attitudes in South America, a December 2003 survey found that 30% of Argentines thought that [[abortion in Argentina]] should be allowed "regardless of situation", 47% that it should be allowed "under some circumstances", and 23% that it should not be allowed "regardless of situation".<ref>{{cite web |title=Argentines Assess Abortion Changes |publisher=[[Angus Reid Global Monitor]] |date=2004-03-04 |url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/2029 |accessdate=2008-12-09| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20090103190525/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/2029| archivedate= 3 January 2009 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> A more recent poll now suggest that 45% of Argentineans are in favor of abortion for any reason in the first twelve weeks. This same poll conducted in September 2011 also suggests that most Argentineans favor abortion being legal when a woman's health or life is at risk (81%), when the pregnancy is a result of rape (80%) or the fetus has severe abnormalities (68%).<ref>{{cite web |title=Views on Changing the Law on Abortion in Argentina |publisher=[[Belden Russonello Strategists LLC]] |date=October 2011 |url=http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/2011/documents/ArgentinaSurveyEnglish3.pdf|accessdate=2011-11-22}}</ref> A March 2007 poll regarding the [[Abortion in Brazil|abortion law in Brazil]] found that 65% of Brazilians believe that it "should not be modified", 16% that it should be expanded "to allow abortion in other cases", 10% that abortion should be "decriminalized", and 5% were "not sure".<ref>{{cite web |title=Brazilians Want to Keep Abortion as Crime |publisher=[[Angus Reid Global Monitor]] |date=2007-04-12 |url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15370 |accessdate=2008-12-09| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20090103192744/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15370| archivedate= 3 January 2009 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> A July 2005 poll in [[Colombia]] found that 65.6% said they thought that abortion should remain illegal, 26.9% that it should be made legal, and 7.5% that they were unsure.<ref>{{cite web |title=Colombians Reject Legalizing Abortion |publisher=[[Angus Reid Global Monitor]] |date=2005-08-02 |url=http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/8333 |accessdate=2008-12-09| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20090103185722/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/8333| archivedate= 3 January 2009 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>

====Effect upon crime rate====
{{Main|Legalized abortion and crime effect}}

A theory attempts to draw a correlation between the United States' unprecedented nationwide decline of the overall crime rate during the 1990s and the decriminalization of abortion 20 years prior.

The suggestion was brought to widespread attention by a 1999 academic paper, ''[[The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime]]'', authored by the economists [[Steven Levitt|Steven D. Levitt]] and John Donohue. They attributed the drop in crime to a reduction in individuals said to have a higher statistical probability of committing crimes: unwanted children, especially those born to mothers who are African American, impoverished, [[teenage pregnancy|adolescent]], uneducated, and [[single parent|single]]. The change coincided with what would have been the adolescence, or peak years of potential criminality, of those who had not been born as a result of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and similar cases. Donohue and Levitt's study also noted that states which legalized abortion before the rest of the nation experienced the lowering crime rate pattern earlier, and those with higher abortion rates had more pronounced reductions.<ref>{{Cite journal |first=John J. |last=Donohue |date=May 2001|title=[[The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime]] |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of Economics]] |volume=116 |issue=2 |pages=379–420 |doi=10.1162/00335530151144050 |last2=Levitt |first2=Steven D.}}</ref>

Fellow economists Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz criticized the methodology in the Donohue-Levitt study, noting a lack of accommodation for statewide yearly variations such as cocaine use, and recalculating based on incidence of crime per capita; they found no [[statistically significant]] results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Foote |first=Christopher L. |date=February 2008|title=The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime: Comment |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of Economics]] |volume=123 |issue=1 |pages=407–423 |doi=10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.407 |last2=Goetz |first2=Christopher F.}}</ref> Levitt and Donohue responded to this by presenting an adjusted [[data set]] which took into account these concerns and reported that the data maintained the statistical significance of their initial paper.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Donohue |first=John J. |date=February 2008|title=Measurement Error, Legalized Abortion, and the Decline in Crime: A Response to Foote and Goetz |journal=[[Quarterly Journal of Economics]] |volume=123 |issue=1 |pages=425–440 |doi=10.1162/qjec.2008.123.1.425 |last2=Levitt |first2=Steven D.}}</ref>

Such research has been criticized by some as being [[utilitarianism|utilitarian]], discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting [[eugenics]] as a solution to crime.<ref>{{cite web |title=Crime-Abortion Study Continues to Draw Pro-life Backlash |date=1999-08-11 |publisher=The Pro-Life Infonet |url=http://ohioroundtable.org/library/articles/life/crimeabortion.html |work=Ohio Roundtable Online Library |accessdate=2008-12-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=J.B.F. |url=http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2000/Editorial.asp |title=Abortion and the Lower Crime Rate |date=January 2000|work=St. Anthony Messenger |accessdate=2008-12-06| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20081205054847/http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jan2000/editorial.asp| archivedate= 5 December 2008 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> Levitt states in his book ''[[Freakonomics]]'' that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action—merely reporting data as economists.

====Breast cancer hypothesis====
{{Main|Abortion – breast cancer hypothesis}}
The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis posits that induced abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer.<ref name="RUSSO_505">{{cite journal |author=Russo J, Russo I |title=Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence |journal=Am J Pathol |volume=100 |issue=2 |pages=505–506 |year=1980 |pmid=6773421 |quote=In contrast, abortion is associated with increased risk of carcinomas of the breast. The explanation for these epidemiologic findings is not known, but the parallelism between the DMBA-induced rat mammary carcinoma model and the human situation is striking.... Abortion would interrupt this process, leaving in the gland undifferentiated structures like those observed in the rat mammary gland, which could render the gland again susceptible to carcinogenesis. |pmc=1903536}}</ref> This position contrasts with the scientific consensus that abortion does ''not'' cause breast cancer.<ref name="WHO">{{cite web |url=http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html |title=Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk |date=June 2000|accessdate=2007-12-24 |publisher=[[World Health Organization]] |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20071214064635/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs240/en/index.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-12-14}}</ref><ref name="rcog_2000">{{Cite book |title=The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion |origyear=2000 |url=http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/induced_abortionfull.pdf |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080227213507/http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/induced_abortionfull.pdf |archivedate=2008-02-27 |format=PDF|accessdate=2008-12-05 |series=Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7 |date=September 2004|publisher=[[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]] |isbn=1-904752-06-3 |oclc=263585758 |page=43 |author=[[Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists]]}}</ref><ref name="oversight">{{cite web |url=http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_breast_cancer.htm |title=Breast Cancer Risks |accessdate=2008-04-14 |publisher=[[United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]] |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20080327055020/http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_breast_cancer.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2008-03-27}}</ref><ref name="JASEN">{{Cite journal |author=Koba S, Nowak S |title=[A case of acute bacterial dysentery with cerebrospinal meningitis] |language=Polish |journal=Wiadomości lekarskie |volume=29 |issue=3 |pages=221–223 |date=February 1976|pmid=1251638 |doi= |url= |issn=0043-5147}}</ref>

In early pregnancy, levels of [[estrogen]] increase, leading to breast growth in preparation for [[lactation]]. The hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted by an abortion&nbsp;– before full maturity in the third trimester&nbsp;– then more relatively vulnerable immature cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. The hypothesis mechanism was first proposed and explored in rat studies conducted in the 1980s.<ref name="RUSSO">{{Cite journal |author=Russo J, Russo IH |title=Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. II. Pregnancy interruption as a risk factor in tumor incidence |journal=Am. J. Pathol. |volume=100 |issue=2 |pages=497–512 |date=August 1980|pmid=6773421 |pmc=1903536 |doi= |url= }}</ref><ref name="RUSSO2">{{cite journal |author=Russo J, Tay L, Russo I |title=Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis |journal=Breast Cancer Research and Treatment |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=5–73 |year=1982 |pmid=6216933 |doi=10.1007/BF01805718}}</ref><ref name="RUSSO3">{{cite journal |author=Russo J, Russo I |title=Biological and molecular bases of mammary carcinogenesis |journal=Laboratory Investigation |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=112–137 |year=1987 |pmid=3302534 |issn=0023-6837}}</ref>

==See also==
{|
|- valign="top"
|
* [[Abortion law]]
* [[Legal protection of access to abortion|Bubble zone laws]]
* [[Conscience clause (medical)]]
* [[Stem cell controversy|Embryonic stem cell research]]
* [[Equal Protection Clause]]
* [[Feticide]]
* [[Late-term abortion]]
|
* [[Opposition to the legalization of abortion]]
* [[Reproductive rights]]
* [[Roe effect]]
* ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''
* [[Societal attitudes towards abortion]]
* [[Support for the legalization of abortion]]
* [[Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate]]
* [[Beginning of human personhood]]
|}

==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==References==
*{{Cite book |last=Boonin |first=David |title=A Defense of Abortion |series=Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy |year=2003 |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder |isbn=0-521-52035-5 }}
*{{Cite journal |doi=10.2307/2026833 |last=Cudd |first=Ann E. |authorlink=Ann E. Cudd |date=May 1990|title=Sensationalized Philosophy: A Reply to Marquis's "Why Abortion is Immoral" |journal=[[The Journal of Philosophy]] |volume=87 |issue=5 |pages=262–264 |issn=0022-362X |pmid=11782095 |jstor=2026833 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Lee |first=Patrick |title=Abortion and Unborn Human Life |year=1996 |publisher=Catholic University of America Press |isbn=0-8132-0846-7 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Patrick |date=June 2004|title=The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity: A Defense |journal=Bioethics |volume=18 |issue=3 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00393.x |pmid=15341038 |pages=249–63}}
*{{Cite book |last=Mappes |first=Thomas A. |author2=David DeGrazia |title=Biomedical Ethics |year=2001 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0-07-230365-4 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Marquis |first=Don |authorlink=Don Marquis (philosopher) |date=April 1989|title=Why Abortion is Immoral |journal=[[The Journal of Philosophy]] |volume=86 |issue=4 |pages=183–202 |doi=10.2307/2026961 |pmid=11782094 |jstor=2026961 }}
*{{Cite book |last=McMahan |first=Jeff |authorlink=Jeff McMahan (philosopher) |title=The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life | series=Oxford Ethics Series |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |isbn=0-19-516982-4 }}
*{{Cite book |last=Schwarz |first=Stephen D. |title=The Moral Question of Abortion |year=1990 |publisher=Loyola University Press |location=Chicago |isbn=0-8294-0623-9}}
*{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |authorlink=Peter Singer |title=Writings on an Ethical Life |year=2000 |publisher=Ecco (HarperCollins) |isbn=0-06-019838-9 }}
*{{Cite journal |last=Stone |first=Jim |date=December 1987|title=Why Potentiality Matters |journal=Canadian Journal of Philosophy |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=815–830}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Stretton |first=Dean |date=June 2004|title=Essential Properties and the Right to Life: A Response to Lee |journal=Bioethics |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=264–282 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00394.x |pmid=15341039}}
*{{Cite journal |last=Tooley |first=Michael |year=1972 |title=Abortion and Infanticide |journal=Philosophy and Public Affairs |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=37–65 | jstor = 2264919 }}
*{{Cite conference |first=Mary Ann |last=Warren |authorlink=Mary Ann Warren |year=1973 |title=On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion | booktitle = Biomedical Ethics |editor=Thomas A. Mappes |others=David DeGrazia |publisher=McGraw-Hill |pages=456–461}}
*{{Cite conference |first=Mary Ann |last=Warren |authorlink=Mary Ann Warren |year=1982 |title=Postscript on Infanticide | booktitle = Biomedical Ethics |editor=Thomas A. Mappes |others=David DeGrazia |publisher=McGraw-Hill |pages=461–463}}

==External links==
<!--======================== {{No more links}} ============================
| PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia |
| is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising. |
| |
| Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED. |
| See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details. |
| |
| If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or |
| replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link |
| to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org) |
| and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template. |
======================= {{No more links}} =============================-->
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 Findlaw: full text of ''Roe V Wade'' decision, plus discussion]
*[http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/abortion/index.htm Abortion and Ethics] Case studies, Christian and non-Christian responses and resources for students
*[http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html Reasons why women have induced abortions, evidence from 27 countries]
*[http://www.thehist.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=65&limit=5&limitstart=0&order=date&dir=ASC&Itemid=713 Recordings] of [[College Historical Society]] debate on abortion featuring [[William Binchy|Professor William Binchy]], [[Frances Kissling]] and [[Rebecca Gomperts]]
*[http://debategraph.org/stream.aspx?nid=585&iv=5 Interactive map of the Abortion debate], [[Debategraph]]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/religion/religion.shtml Religious perspectives on abortion]

{{Abortion}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Abortion Debate}}
[[Category:Abortion debate| ]]

Revision as of 04:04, 7 April 2015

how is babby formed how is babby formed how girl get pragnent? they need to do way instain mother who kill their babby because these babbies can't frigth back? it was on the news this mroing a woman in ar whose husband killed their three kids they are taking the three babbies back to New York to lady to rest my pary are with the father

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_debate&oldid=655294821"