Abortion debate
Supporters and opponents of abortion often argue that it is essentially a moral issue, concerning the beginning of human personhood, rights of the fetus, and bodily integrity.
Libertarians, for example, may oppose taxpayer funding for abortion based on principles of limited government and personal responsibility, while holding diverse views on the legality of the procedure itself.
[4] In ancient times, issues such as abortion and infanticide were evaluated by patriarchies within the contexts of family planning, gender selection, population control, and property rights.
[10] In the current debate, proposals range from prohibitions on abortion in all cases, even when the woman's life is at risk, to calls for complete legalization with provisions for public funding.
[13] For example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply widely held values such as liberty or the right to life, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life".
The issue-framing and policy-making aspects vary from each perspective and interest but ultimately form the strategic decisions for legislators for support or opposition to their efforts.
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.
[41] Justice Potter Stewart, who joined with the majority, viewed the Roe opinion as "legislative" and asked that more consideration be paid to state legislatures.
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.Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlets 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].Dobbs v. Jackson overturned the Roe decision on 24 June 2022.
Laws also exist which are intended to prevent anti-abortion activists from interfering with staff and patient access to hospitals and clinics, for instance by creating buffer zones around them.
Today, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass several aspects of human beings previously considered the domain of the "soul".
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
[73] Anand's suggestion is disputed in a March 2010 report on fetal awareness published by a working party of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), citing a lack of evidence or rationale.
In a 1997 letter to the British Medical Journal,[77] 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".
[92] 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.
Several reasons include but are not limited to the necessary proper analysis of public interests and policy, legislative violations when criminalizing abortion, utilizing humanitarian efforts, equality of resources and medical access, etc.
[111] The regulation of the population's fundamental rights disregards several policy-making purposes: assessing the burdens, opportunity costs, and unintended consequences of public policies.
[111] Prioritization of such assessments benefits the essential understanding of trends regarding abortion rates and depicts an accurate evaluation of the status of women's reproductive freedoms and equality overall.
[115] The 2022 LTP Evaluation found that doctors were unwilling to conduct late abortions even when the legislation allowed them, preferring to refer pregnant women to clinics abroad out of anxiety for the possibility of exposing themselves to criminal culpability.
This worry even extends to an unfounded fear of being prosecuted for sending their patient to a clinic in a different country where late abortion is permitted.
Researchers from the Guttmacher Institute, the World Health Organization, and the University of Massachusetts concluded that, in countries where abortions were restricted, the number of unintended pregnancies increased.
[131] According to the argument, 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.
[citation needed] Some anti-abortion 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.
[161] A 2021 study showed that abortion providers faced discrimination and termination in the workplace, death threats, harassment, and impacts to their private and personal lives for them and their families.
[162] As of 2022, after the overturn of Roe vs Wade by the Supreme Court, a Wall Street Journal poll conducted in March showed that 60% of voters believed that abortion should be legal in most cases, an increase of 5% earlier in the year.
[164] This poll found little difference based on gender (61% of men generally supportive vs 64% of women) with education and especially religious affiliation being better predictive factors.
In Kenya, both male and female opinions show that abortion is frowned upon, due to embedded social norms that stem from religious and cultural beliefs.
This same poll conducted in September 2011 also suggests that most Argentinians 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%).
[174] 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 D. Levitt and John Donohue.
