Abortion debate
256025
224930646
2008-07-11T01:37:37Z
Sardanaphalus
427947
updating link using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]]
{{Abortion debate (sidebar)}}
The '''abortion debate''' refers to discussion and controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of [[abortion]]. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the [[pro-choice]] movement, which generally supports access to abortion and regards it as morally permissible, and the [[pro-life]] movement, which generally opposes access to abortion and regards it as morally wrong. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position. In [[Abortion in Canada|Canada]], for example, abortion is available on demand,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortion-on-demand&r=66 |title=abortion on demand |accessdate=2007-05-01 |work=Dictionary.com |quote=(1) the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first nine months of a pregnancy; (2) an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request}}</ref> while in [[Abortion in Nicaragua|Nicaragua]] abortions are always illegal. In the [[Abortion in the United States|USA]], abortion is generally legal but subject to restrictions in some jurisdictions and circumstances. In some cases, the abortion debate has led to the use of [[Abortion-related violence|violence]].
==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''"). Such terms gloss over the underlying issue of ''which'' choice or life is being considered and ''whose'' choice or ''what kind'' of life is deemed most important.
Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the alleged "[[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 terms "[[embryo]]" and "[[fetus]]" are seen by pro-life advocates as [[dehumanization|dehumanizing]]; the terms "[[Infant|baby]]" and "unborn child" are seen by pro-choice advocates as [[emotionalism|emotionalized]]. Likewise, there is debate between use of the terms "[[woman]]" and "[[mother]]".
==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. Regarding [[abortion law]], the political debate usually surrounds a right to [[privacy]], and when or how a government may [[Regulation|regulate]] abortion. For example, 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> Some pro-life advocates argue that governments should be permitted to regulate 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 |year=1973 |month=December |work=Where We Stand—CMA Position Papers |publisher=California Medical Association |pages=43 |quote=Good medical practice indicates that abortion should not be performed after the 20th week of pregnancy}}</ref> [[Fetus#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 |coauthors=Ann Furedi |year=2002 |month=February |format=PDF |work=Legal Issues for Pro-Choice Opinion - Abortion Law in Practice |publisher=University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NY, UK |pages=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 [[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}}</ref> Some want to regulate 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" |accessyear=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}}</ref>
===Privacy===
''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' has stated that the issue of bodily [[privacy]] is "the core" of the abortion debate.<ref name="Time">{{cite web |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> 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> Privacy, in relation to abortion, is defined as the ability of a woman to "decide what happens to her own body".<ref name="Time"/>
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]]. Abortions are recognized as being private, but are criticized for involving the death of a human organism. Critics argue that abortion regulation is valid because the state interest in protecting prenatal life is compelling. Defenders argue either that there is no state interest in regulating abortion, or that the woman's privacy is a ''more'' compelling interest.
[[Image:Roevwade.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[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===
''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', which struck down state laws banning abortion in 1973, was the first of many [[:Category:United States abortion case law|cases]] that have defined abortion law in the [[Abortion in the United States|United States]]. 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.
Critics of the ''Roe'' decision argue 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 web |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}}</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> In response to an argument that the judiciary can "call the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division", Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:
{{quotation|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].<ref>{{cite court|litigants=[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]] |vol=505 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=833 |date=1992 |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=833}}</ref>}}
Candidates competing for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election cite ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' as judicial activism.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ABORTIONPOSITIONS.html#democrats |title=The Presidential Candidates on Abortion |accessdate=2007-05-23 |last=Hossain |first=Farhana |coauthors=Ben Werschkul |date=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.
[[Image:BentoXVI-37-10052007.jpg|thumb|right|250px|"No to abortion" at a 2007 meeting with [[Pope Benedict XVI]] in [[São Paulo]], [[Brazil]]. The crowd have both arms raised in a [[orans|prayer gesture]].]]
===Church and state===
The [[separation of church and state]] is an oft-debated topic in connection with abortion. Many churches have official [[Religion and abortion|positions on abortion]], and there is a [[correlation]] between these official positions and the personal positions of [[wikt:adherent|adherents]]. Religious influences are closely tied to ethical opposition to abortion.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kelley |first=Jonathan | coauthors = M. D. R. Evans and Bruce Headey |year=1993 | month = December |title=Moral Reasoning and Political Conflict: The Abortion Controversy | journal = The British Journal of Sociology | volume = 44 | issue = 4 |pages=589–612 | doi=10.2307/591412 |laysummary=http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315(199312)44%3A4%3C589%3AMRAPCT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 | laysource = JSTOR | laydate = 2007-05-24}}</ref> Some argue{{who?}} that efforts to codify official church positions (particularly pro-life positions) are an illegal or unjust breach of separation, either because those positions are innately religious or on the basis that separation of church and state should include separation of ''religion'' from ''politics''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Weithman |first=Paul J. |year=Winter 1991 |title=The Separation of Church and State: Some Questions for Professor Audi | journal = Philosophy and Public Affairs | volume = 20 | issue = 1 |pages=52–65 | laysummary = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915(199124)20%3A1%3C52%3ATSOCAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T | laysource = JSTOR | laydate = 2007-05-24 | quote = Audi sees the separation doctrine so understood as but one part of a larger issue: the separation of religion from politics}}</ref> Some argue{{who?}} that restrictions on abortion are not a breach of separation, since the pro-life position can be defended by appeal to secular ethical arguments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth5.html|title=A Secular Case Against Abortion|accessdate=2007-05-23|last=Roth|first=Jen|date=2000-08-20|work=Secularist v. Secularist: Abortion|publisher=Infidels.org}}</ref> It has also been argued that churches have an important role to play in political life, since in some communities they are an important source of information, resources, and incentives to engage in the political process.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Greenberg |first=Anna |year=Fall 2000 |title=The Church and the Revitalization of Politics and Community | journal = Political Science Quarterly | volume = 115 | issue = 3 |pages=377–394(18) | laysummary = http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/taps/psq/2000/00000115/00000003/art00004 | laysource = IngentaConnect | laydate = 2007-05-24 | doi = 10.2307/2658124}}</ref>
==Ethical debate==
{{Main|Ethical aspects of abortion|Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate|}}
[[Ethics]] refers to "[[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 correlation between [[Religion and abortion|religion and abortion ethics]].
===Personhood===
Some argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent [[human being]].<ref>Warren, 1973</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 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 features not found in fetuses.
Critics of this position typically argue that the proposed criteria for personhood would disqualify two classes of ''born'' human beings — reversibly [[comatose]] patients, and human [[infant]]s — 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> 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.
An alternate 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 genetic propensity or ''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]] 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>
[[Image:Pro-Life Demonstration at Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Pro-life demonstrators in [[Washington, D.C.]] symbolically cover their mouths with red tape.]]
===Deprivation===
Some argue 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 (philosophy)|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 (for example the young, bright and healthy) appear to be far more valuable or desirable than the futures of other people (for example the old, depressed and sick), 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. Finally, some argue that as [[gametes]] have a similar potential to the fetus, the argument would entail that [[contraception]] is as wrong as the killing of an adult human being—a conclusion that is similarly taken to be counterintuitive or unacceptable.
[[Image:March for Women's Lives detail.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The 2004 [[March for Women's Lives]] near the [[Washington Monument]].]]
===Bodily rights===
{{Further|[[A Defense of Abortion]]}}
Some argue that ''even if'' the fetus has a right to life, abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The best known variant of this argument draws an analogy between forcing a woman to continue an unwanted [[pregnancy]] and forcing a person's body to be used as a [[dialysis]] machine 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 against one's will).
Critics of this argument generally attempt to identify 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 [[Objection (argument)|objections]], arguing that the alleged disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have claimed.<ref>Boonin 2003: ch 4</ref>
==See also==
{{col-start}}
{{col-break}}
*[[Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis]]
*[[Abortion and mental health]]
*[[Legal protection of access to abortion|Bubble zone laws]]
*[[Conscience clause (medical)]]
*[[Stem cell controversy|Embryonic stem cell research]]
{{col-break}}
*[[Feticide|Fetal homicide laws]]
*[[Genetics and abortion]]
*[[Legalized abortion and crime effect]]
*[[Paternal rights and abortion]]
*[[Post-abortion syndrome]]
{{col-break}}
*[[Pregnancy options counseling]]
*[[Religion and abortion]]
*[[Roe effect]]
*[[Sex-selective abortion]]
*[[Societal attitudes towards abortion]]
{{col-end}}
==Notes==
{{reflist|3}}
==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=0521520355 }}
*{{cite book |last=Lee |first=Patrick |title=Abortion and Unborn Human Life |year=1996 |publisher=Catholic University of America Press |isbn=0813208467 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Lee |first=Patrick |year=2004 | month = June |title=The Pro-Life Argument from Substantial Identity: A Defense | journal = Bioethics | volume = 18 | issue = 3 |pages=249 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00393.x | laysummary = http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00393.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=biot | laysource = Blackwell Synergy | laydate = 2007-05-25}}
*{{cite book |last=Mappes |first=Thomas A. |coauthors=David DeGrazia |title=Biomedical Ethics |year=2001 |publisher=McGraw-Hill |isbn=0072303654 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Marquis |first=Don |year=1989 | month = April |title=Why Abortion is Immoral | journal = The Journal of Philosophy | volume = 86 | issue = 4 |pages=183–202 | doi = 10.2307/2026961 | laysummary = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X(198904)86%3A4%3C183%3AWAII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T | laysource = JSTOR | laydate = 2007-05-25}}
*{{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=0195169824 }}
*{{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}}
*{{cite book |last=Schwarz |first=Stephen D. |title=The Moral Question of Abortion |year=1990 |publisher=Loyola University Press |location=Chicago |isbn=0829406239}}
*{{cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |authorlink=Peter Singer |title=Writings on an Ethical Life |year=2000 |publisher=Ecco (HarperCollins) |isbn=0060198389 }}
*{{cite journal |last=Stone |first=Jim |year=1987 | month = December |title=Why Potentiality Matters | journal = Canadian Journal of Philosophy | volume = 17 | issue = 4 |pages=815–830}}
*{{cite journal |last=Stretton |first=Dean |year=2004 | month = June |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 | laysummary = http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00394.x?journalCode=biot | laysource = Blackwell Synergy | laydate = 2007-05-25}}
*{{cite journal |last=Tooley |first=Michael |year=1972 |title=Abortion and Infanticide | journal = Philosophy and Public Affairs | volume = 2 | issue = 1 |pages=37–65 | laysummary = http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915(197223)2%3A1%3C37%3AAAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K | laysource = JSTOR | laydate = 2007-05-25}}
==External links==
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm Overview of abortion policies in Europe], from the [[BBC]]
*[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.publicagenda.org/issues/red_flags_detail2.cfm?issue_type=abortion&red_flag_graphic=rfabortiondepends.jpg Public opinion on when abortion is acceptable]
*[http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html Reasons why women have induced abortions, evidence from 27 countries]
*[http://www.wikireason.net/wiki/Abortion Experimental Wiki for Exploring the Abortion issue]
* [http://www.self-gov.org/ruwart/q0116.html Are There 'Pro-Life' Libertarians?], a question answered by [[Mary Ruwart|Dr. Mary Ruwart]]
{| style="background-color: transparent; width:100%"
| width="50%" align="left" valign="top" |
===Pro-choice links===
* [http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/ Abortion Rights]
* [http://www.abortionisprolife.com/ Abortion Is Prolife]
* [http://www.choiceusa.org/ Choice USA]
* [http://www.ms4c.org/ Medical Students for Choice]
* [http://www.naral.org/ NARAL Pro-Choice America]
* [http://www.prochoice.org/ National Abortion Federation]
* [http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/index.html National Organization for Women]
* [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ Planned Parenthood]
* [http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/ Pro-Choice Libertarians]
* [http://www.protectchoice.org/ Pro-Choice Public Education Project]
* [http://www.rcrc.org/ The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice]
* [http://www.religiousconsultation.org/summary_of_sacred_choices.htm Summary of Sacred Choices]
* [http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html Full text of Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion"]
* [http://www.geocities.com/xianleft_michael/Contraception.html When life begins, by Michael Bender]
* [http://www.alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml The Right to Abortion: A Libertarian Defence by Sharon Presley & Robert Cooke]
* [http://choicematters.org/articles/procon.html Legal Abortion: Arguments Pro & Con]
| width="50%" align="left" valign="top" |
===Pro-life links===
* [http://democratsforlife.org/ Democrats for Life]
* [http://abortionno.org/abortion_no.html The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform] (Warning: site contains graphic images)
* [http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life]
* [http://www.physiciansforlife.org/ Physicians for Life]
* [http://www.feministsforlife.org/ Feminists for Life]
* [http://www.l4l.org/ Libertarians for Life]
* [http://www.nrlc.org/ National Right to Life Committee]
* [http://www.pldaily.com/ PLDaily.com ]
* [http://www.prolifeaction.com/ Pro-Life Action]
* [http://www.ProLifeCommittee.org/ Pro-Life Campaign Committee]
* [http://www.ProLifeCommitteeNews.com/ Pro-Life Campaign Committee News]
* [http://www.abortionfacts.com/ Abortion Facts]
* [http://www.all.org American Life League]
* [http://www.abortiontv.com Abortiontv.com] (Warning: site contains graphic images)
* [http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/academic.html Pro-Life Academic Articles]
* [http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/pl_case.htm Library of Pro-Life Literature]
[[Category:Abortion debate| Abortion debate]]
[[Category:Controversies]]
[[it:Dibattito sull'aborto]]
[[pt:Debate sobre o aborto]]
[[ru:Полемика вокруг проблемы аборта]]