= 332
The numbers in brackets are the variable’s scales
We used a Polish adaptation (Jarmakowski-Kostrzanowski & Jarmakowska-Kostrzanowska, 2016 ) of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2009 ) to measure the degree to which the participants endorsed five sets of moral intuitions (i.e., care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity) in moral decision-making. The scale consists of 30 items that measure the moral foundations in two ways: a relevance subscale (15 items) showing how important each one of the moral foundations is for a person, and a judgments subscale (15 items), which measures the extent to which people agree with various moral opinions connected with the different moral foundations. An example item for care is “It can never be right to kill a human being”; for fairness: “When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly”; for loyalty: “People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong”; for authority: “Men and women each have different roles to play in society”; and for purity: “People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed”. A 1 to 6 response scale was used for all items, where 1 was not at all relevant or strongly disagree , and 6 was extremely relevant or strongly agree . Responses were averaged to give an overall score for each foundation. Cronbach alphas were found to be moderate for care ( α = 0.61) and fairness ( α = 0.56) and high for loyalty ( α = 0.77), authority ( α = 0.76), and purity ( α = 0.82).
It measures moral foundations based on evaluating other people’s behavior violating them (MFV; Clifford et al., 2015 ). The randomized set of 21 vignettes was used in our study, three vignettes per moral foundation. Apart from using five classic moral foundations, it includes a liberty foundation and two types of care, i.e., sensitivity to emotional harm to humans or non-human animals (care emotional) and sensitivity to physical harm to humans or non-human animals (care physical). An example item for care emotional is “You see a woman commenting out loud about how fat another woman looks in her jeans”; for care physical: “You see a zoo trainer jabbing a dolphin to get it to entertain his customers”; for fairness: “You see a boy skipping to the front of the line because his friend is an employee”, for liberty: “You see a man forbidding his wife to wear clothing that he has not first approved”; for loyalty: “You see the US Ambassador joking in Great Britain about the stupidity of Americans” [changed into Polish Ambassador in Germany]; for authority: “You see an employee trying to undermine all of her boss’ ideas in front of others”; for purity: “You see an employee at a morgue eating his pepperoni pizza off of a dead body”. The 5-point scale was used from 1 ( not at all wrong ) to 5 ( extremely wrong ). We did translation-back-translation of MFV (see Materials at OSF). Cronbach alphas were satisfactorily high for care emotional ( α = 0.88), fairness ( α = 0.71), liberty ( α = 0.72), authority ( α = 0.71), and loyalty ( α = 0.76), and moderate for care physical ( α = 0.68) and purity ( α = 0.56).
Participants were asked to evaluate their level of practicing religion on a scale from 1 ( I don’t practice at all ) to 8 ( I am a very practicing person ). Additionally, we asked about which type of religion they practiced (if they practiced any).
We asked participants two questions about their political views, one related to economic issues (“Please indicate on the following scale your political views relating to economic issues”) on a scale from 0 ( State participation should be very small ) to 7 ( State participation should be very high ), and the other one related to social issues (“Please indicate on the following scale your political views relating to social, cultural issues”) on a scale from 0 ( very conservative ) to 7 ( very liberal ).
Descriptive statistics and differences between pro-choice and pro-life women in religious practice, political views, and attitudes to abortion are shown in Table 1 . The two groups differed (Welch t-tests) significantly in practicing religion (lower among pro-choice) and political views on social issues (higher liberal views among pro-choice), but there was no difference between the groups in views on economic issues. Pro-choice and pro-life women differed in full support for abortion, meaning the two groups differed in their extreme views on abortion. Moreover, pro-life women had stronger beliefs that the new abortion rule in Poland would positively impact themselves personally, their close others, and women in general. In contrast, pro-choice women believed more that the new law would harm all women, themselves, and their close others.
Regarding conditional support, women pro-life agreed more with two statements allowing abortion conditionally when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or health and when one is sure that the child will be born with a genetic defect. Women pro-choice agreed more with the third statement allowing the right to abortion until the 12th week of pregnancy (Table 1 ).
Summing up, the observed differences, especially in full support of abortion, show that women accurately classified themselves into one of the two groups, and we can be sure that the groups indeed evaluate abortion from different standpoints (however, see the limitation section for elaboration on improving such classification).
Next, we run analyses to see if moral foundations measured in two ways (i.e., MFQ and MFV) correlated. As shown in Table 2 , we received positive correlations among analogous dimensions of moral foundations, replicating past results (Clifford et al., 2015 ).
Pearson correlations between moral foundations measured by MFQ and MFV
MFQ: Care | MFQ: Fairness | MFQ: Loyalty | MFQ: Authority | MFQ: Purity | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFV: Care Emotional | 0.245 | 0.306 | 0.096 | 0.024 | 0.075 |
MFV: Care Physical | 0.257 | 0.226 | 0.032 | − 0.037 | 0.004 |
MFV: Fairness | 0.118 | 0.313 | 0.112 | 0.090 | 0.116 |
MFV: Liberty | 0.160 | 0.306 | 0.069 | − 0.074 | − 0.005 |
MFV: Authority | 0.110 | 0.236 | 0.403 | 0.395 | 0.411 |
MFV: Loyalty | 0.112 | 0.177 | 0.506 | 0.471 | 0.432 |
MFV: Purity | 0.210 | 0.190 | 0.301 | 0.269 | 0.418 |
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 two-sided.
Finally, we run analyses to see if the groups differ in moral foundations (ANOVA) and when controlling for political views and religious practice simultaneously (ANCOVA).
Do pro-choice and pro-life women differ in moral foundations.
Yes. As shown in Table 3 , when we analyzed differences between groups (ANOVA) using the classical measure of moral foundations (i.e., MFQ), we found that pro-life women had significantly higher binding foundations than pro-choice women, i.e., loyalty (medium effect size), authority (medium effect size), and purity (large effect size). We observed a different pattern of results when using the MFV (with small effect sizes for all results), a more indirect measure of moral foundations. For binding moral foundations, only loyalty seemed to play a role here, i.e., pro-life women had a higher level of loyalty than pro-choice women. However, pro-choice women had higher levels of both types of care (i.e., emotional and physical) and liberty than pro-life women. Fairness, authority, and purity did not differentiate those groups using MFV.
Tests of effects in ANOVA and ANCOVA
Descriptive Statistics | ANOVA | ANCOVA | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pro-Choice | Pro-Life | Attitude Toward Abortion | Attitude Toward Abortion | Political Views on Economic Issues | Political Views on Social Issues | Religious Practice | ||||||
( ) | ( ) | (1,477) | (1,474) | (1,474) | (1,474) | (1,474) | ||||||
MFV Care(emotional) | 4.46 (0.73) | 4.20 (0.88) | 11.56 | 0.024 | 8.36 | 0.017 | 7.38 | 0.015 | 0.16 | 0.44 | ||
Care(physical) | 4.60 (0.58) | 4.36 (0.72) | 14.04 | 0.029 | 5.54 | 0.012 | 6.23 | 0.013 | 0.91 | 2.74 | ||
Fairness | 4.43 (0.62) | 4.31 (0.64) | 3.81 | 6.95 | 0.014 | 1.41 | 2.94 | 0.24 | ||||
Liberty | 4.34 (0.69) | 4.00 (0.84) | 21.84 | 0.044 | 14.28 | 0.029 | 1.69 | 2.65 | 2.25 | |||
Authority | 3.08 (0.89) | 3.23 (1.04) | 2.57 | 10.71 | 0.022 | 3.97 | 0.008 | 3.06 | 35.61 | 0.070 | ||
Loyalty | 3.24 (1.01) | 3.52 (1.01) | 7.86 | 0.016 | 0.85 | 6.36 | 0.013 | 11.50 | 0.024 | 5.76 | 0.012 | |
Purity | 3.90 (0.78) | 3.96 (0.96) | 0.51 | 4.68 | 0.010 | 12.25 | 0.025 | 4.41 | 0.009 | 7.24 | 0.015 | |
MFQ Care | 5.24 (0.56) | 5.30 (0.55) | 1.12 | 3.09 | 4.72 | 0.010 | 2.71 | 0.1 | ||||
Fairness | 4.95 (0.57) | 4.87 (0.58) | 2.00 | 0.45 | 8.47 | 0.018 | 0.64 | 0.02 | ||||
Loyalty | 3.15 (0.88) | 3.57 (0.81) | 24.29 | 0.048 | 1.03 | 9.38 | 0.019 | 28.75 | 0.057 | 16.04 | 0.033 | |
Authority | 2.84 (0.91) | 3.42 (0.93) | 39.95 | 0.077 | 1.39 | 11.14 | 0.023 | 64.68 | 0.120 | 20.2 | 0.041 | |
Purity | 3.12 (0.99) | 4.17 (1.13) | 106.48 | 0.182 | 0.06 | 7.13 | 0.015 | 49.48 | 0.095 | 91.42 | 0.162 |
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. The rows contain tests of one ANOVA with moral foundation as a dependent variable and attitude toward abortion as a factor, and one ANCOVA, extending the ANOVA with the set of covariates: religious practice, political views on economic issues, and political views on social issues
Do pro-choice and pro-life women differ in moral foundations when we control religious practice and political views.
Yes. When we controlled for political views and religious practice simultaneously (ANCOVA), we found no differences between groups regarding declared moral foundations (MFQ). However, in the case of real-life assessments (MFV), we observed the same pattern of results for care and liberty as when using ANOVA, but now loyalty did not differentiate these two groups. Additionally, we observed differences in fairness, authority, and purity in such a way that women pro-life had higher levels of those foundations than women pro-choice. All found effects were small.
Past research tried to explain attitudes to abortion mainly by looking into religious and political differences between pro-choice and pro-life people. However, attitudes to abortion may also be related to an individual’s moral views (Jędryczka et al., 2022 ; Jonason et al., 2022 ), and sometimes moral foundations may even be an as good predictor of attitudes to abortion as a religious practice or political conservatism (Koleva et al., 2012 ). In the current research, we looked into the problem of attitudes to abortion more deeply by studying, directly and indirectly, moral foundations among pro-choice and women pro-life women.
When we asked about moral foundations directly (using MFQ of Graham and colleagues, 2009 ), we confirmed our preregistered hypothesis that pro-life women have higher binding foundations than pro-choice women. This result is consistent with past findings (Jonason et al., 2022 ). However, we found a different pattern of results when measuring moral foundations indirectly, i.e., by MFV (Clifford et al., 2015 ). For binding foundations, only loyalty seemed to play a role here, i.e., pro-life women had a higher level of loyalty than pro-choice women. Regarding individualizing foundations, pro-choice women had higher care (physical and emotional) and liberty levels than pro-life women. Fairness, authority, and purity did not differentiate those groups when applying MFV.
Moreover, when we additionally controlled for religious practice and political views (ANCOVA), we found no differences in moral foundations between groups regarding declared moral foundations (MFQ). However, in the case of real-life assessments (MFV), we observed higher care and liberty among pro-choice (just like in ANOVA) and higher fairness, authority, and purity among pro-life. We conclude that religious practice and political views may explain differences between pro-choice and pro-life, but only in the case of declared moral foundations (MFQ) and not in MFV (when individuals make moral judgments about real-life behaviors). Because we found differences between pro-choice and pro-life women (whether we controlled religious practice or political views or not), we conclude that studying indirect moral judgments (i.e., using MFV) may reveal hitherto unknown “hidden” differences between pro-choice and pro-life women.
Specifically, our results show intriguing nuances in the problem of abortion as we found that pro-choice and pro-life women differ in declared abstract moral principles (MFQ) and sensitivity to violating those principles in real-life situations (MFV). On the one hand (i.e., when using the MFQ), women who were pro-life were the women who intensely cared about binding foundations, which was also related to their more vital religious practices and higher conservatism on social issues. It simply means that women who were pro-life cared more about binding foundations than pro-choice women, so they declared that they cared about being loyal, listening to authorities, and not violating the purity foundation, which is strictly related to religious sanctity (and indeed, this foundation’s one of the first names was even sanctity ) (Graham et al., 2018 ). Indeed, past studies showed strong correlations between religion and binding moral foundations worldwide (Saroglou & Craninx, 2020 ) and conservative political preferences and binding foundations (Kivikangas et al., 2021 ). Similar associations were found between five moral foundations, religiosity, political preferences, and acceptance of the new abortion rule in Poland (Jonason et al., 2022 ) or between preference for group-based hierarchy and pro-life (Osborne & Davies, 2009 ). When we controlled for religious practice and political views, the differences between pro-choice and pro-life women disappeared, so we can conclude that – at least for declared abstract moral foundations – being religious and conservative plays a central role in the abortion problem.
On the other hand (i.e., when using the MFV), we showed that this is only one part of the story. We know it because when indirectly measuring preferences for moral foundations, the same women (i.e., pro-life) had higher levels of only loyalty foundation when compared to pro-choice women. The importance of loyalty to the abortion problem is consistent with theory and past findings (Jonason et al., 2022 ). Higher levels of loyalty are related to being more religious and conservative (Saroglou & Craninx, 2020 ). The more surprising result is that authority and purity foundations did not play an essential role in the abortion problem when measured indirectly. This result contradicted past findings when moral foundations were measured directly (Jonason et al., 2022 ). It may be related to a different approach to measuring moral foundations by MFQ and MFV. For example, purity is more directly connected to religiosity in MFQ than in MFV, and their operationalization is slightly different (Crone, 2022 ). We suspect it is the most reasonable explanation for finding no differences here. However, when we additionally controlled for religious practice and political views, we replicated the higher level of care and liberty among pro-choice, but we also found a higher level of fairness, authority, and purity among pro-life. Future researchers could try to explain those nuances more deeply, e.g., by conducting longitudinal studies or using more complex measurements of religiosity and political preferences. We observe inconsistent patterns of results for binding moral foundations measured via MFV, so we should be more tentative about the interpretation and conclusions from our study. We need more studies on this issue to understand why we observed such inconsistency.
Regarding the individualizing moral foundations (MFV), pro-life women scored lower in physical and emotional care and liberty foundations than pro-choice women (also when controlling for religious practice and political views). Regarding care, it simply means that pro-choice and pro-life women gave similar declarations about how important it is for them to care about others (MFQ). However, they differed in indirect measures of care in such a way that pro-choice women had higher levels of care than pro-life women (MFV). These results are the most intriguing for us. Women being pro-life sometimes argue that they care about all life, so abortion should be banned. Nevertheless, we did not find confirmation of this in empirical results. Surprisingly, those women who were pro-choice had higher levels of emotional and physical care than pro-life women. It means that when making moral decisions about other people, pro-choice women were more sensitive to violations of care foundation or, in other words: they disliked the suffering of others more than pro-life women. According to some approaches in moral psychology, the foundation of care is the most critical, and people make their moral judgments mainly based on a simple question: Is anyone hurt? (Gray et al., 2012 ; Schein & Gray, 2018 ). Future studies are needed to explain those differences in care, looking for possible sources of them, maybe in the levels of empathy (Zaki, 2018 ), moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002 ; Paruzel-Czachura & Blukacz 2021 ), moral absolutism (Vecina et al., 2016 ), or more general attitudes to violence (Vecina et al., 2015 ).
As MFQ does not allow measuring the liberty foundation, we only studied its level using the MFV, and we found that pro-choice women had a higher level of liberty than pro-life women. The importance of liberty is consistent with theoretical assumptions of being pro-choice (Foot, 1967 ; Singer, 2011 ; Thomson, 1971 ; Watt, 2017 ), and it is the first result confirming empirically that, indeed, being pro-choice is related to highlighting liberty when making moral decisions about what behavior is right or wrong.
Some individuals may say they are pro-life or pro-choice because of their religious or political preferences. Indeed, we found significant relations between stronger practicing of religion, conservative views on social issues, and being against abortion. However, we also found this may be too straightforward to describe this problem because there are atheists and believers in both groups of women, i.e., pro-choice and pro-life. We need more studies to understand the complex attitudes to abortion, for example, by studying only a sample of atheists. It is also worth highlighting again that past studies showed that moral foundations might be as good a predictor of attitudes to abortion as religious or political views (Koleva et al., 2012 ). Because of the importance of the abortion problem in our everyday lives, we need more studies to understand possible differences between pro-choice and pro-life people beyond simple explanations that abortion is just a matter of religion or politics.
Our study is not free from limitations. First, we tested only one sample. There is a possibility that different samples (e.g., from other cultural or religious backgrounds) would bring different results. We cannot know to what extent the results are dependent on the Polish context and the abortion protests, and this is a limitation that needs to be addressed in future research. We need replications of our study, especially in diverse samples, including countries where the abortion law changed, similar to Poland. Attitudes to abortion may be sensitive to changes in law, which made thousands of women protest for their rights on the streets in the case of Poland. Second, we did not study whether being pro-choice or pro-life is moderated by individual differences. For instance, attitudes or moral judgments may depend on personality (Pratto et al., 1994 ). Does personality matter for the abortion problem, and if yes, how? (Jonason et al., 2022 ). Third, we also did not study how situational factors may impact attitudes toward abortion, and some research shows that this issue is worth future investigations (Bago et al., 2022 ; Bilewicz et al., 2017 ). Fourth, two compared groups were identified based on a direct question about their position on pro-life or pro-choice. To cope with false self-identification, we asked additional questions about attitudes toward the abortion problem and the new law in Poland. Admittedly, we confirmed that women correctly assigned themselves to the group for or against abortion (see results: group check). However, we did not avoid the problem related to the situation that some participants who claimed to be pro-life or pro-choice had more mixed feelings about the rest of the questions. We conducted additional analyses to understand this issue more deeply ( Supplementary Materials ). Specifically, we presented the percentages of participants’ answers within the two groups on the six statements expressing full or conditional support for abortion (Table S1 ). This table shows that most participants correctly assigned themselves to the group. However, there were participants whose feelings were mixed. Moreover, we conducted the hierarchical cluster analysis on the three statements expressing full support for abortion and observed that some participants do not belong to the two obtained clusters (Table S2 ). Because we did not preregister to drop such participants out, we did not do it. However, we recommend implementing better control of this issue in future studies to ensure that such groups are created properly. Fifth, we measured religious practice and political views by only single items. In future studies, researchers could use more complex measures of those variables, e.g., the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (Huber & Huber, 2012 ) or the Resistance to Change-Beliefs Scale (White et al., 2020 ). Sixth, it is worth noticing that the correlations between the factors estimated through the MFQ and the MFV are mediocre, or some correlate not exactly as the theory would expect. For instance, MFV authority correlates with MFQ fairness. Perhaps different results with MFQ and MFV might be caused by the imprecision of the instruments in measuring moral foundations. Lastly, there is also a possibility that different results would be obtained in non-WEIRD samples (that are White, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) (Henrich et al., 2010 ), as some research has suggested different patterns of moral judgments in non-WEIRD samples (e.g., Smith & Apicella 2022 ; Sorokowski et al., 2020 ; Turpin et al., 2021 ; Workman et al., 2022 ). Despite all the above limitations, we believe that because of our topic’s theoretical and practical relevance, our study brings an important puzzle to understanding polarization regarding the abortion problem.
We conclude that to understand the attitudes to abortion more fully, we must go beyond abstract moral declarations. Our research demonstrates that pro-choice and pro-life women differed in moral foundations when (a) they revealed abstract moral foundations (pro-life women cared more about loyalty, authority, and purity than pro-choice women) and (b) when they made moral judgments closed to real-life problems (e.g., pro-choice women were more concerned than pro-life women when the foundations of emotional and physical care and liberty were violated). Concerning the latest restrictions on abortion in many places worldwide, discussions about the abortion problem have become more common in our everyday lives. This issue touched many people so much that it sparked massive protests. Hence, it is essential that people are aware of these differences between pro-choice and pro-life women, and we definitely need more studies on this topic.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(DOCX 24.2 KB)
MPC and MN contributed to the study conceptualization. MPC and AD wrote the draft. MPC and MN contributed to data collection and data preparation. AD analyzed the data. All authors accepted the final version.
Declarations.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1 We did not pre-register dropping those participants out. However, when we repeated the analyses for the full sample, we observed the very similar values of Cronbach alphas, the same pattern of correlations and differences between groups, and similar p-values in the performed statistical tests.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Mark Wilson / Staff / Getty Images
Many points come up in the abortion debate . Here's a look at abortion from both sides : 10 arguments for abortion and 10 arguments against abortion, for a total of 20 statements that represent a range of topics as seen from both sides.
“ Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception .” Princeton University , The Trustees of Princeton University.
“ Long-Term Risks of Surgical Abortion .” GLOWM, doi:10.3843/GLOWM.10441
Patel, Sangita V, et al. “ Association between Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and Abortions .” Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AIDS , Medknow Publications, July 2010, doi:10.4103/2589-0557.75030
Raviele, Kathleen Mary. “ Levonorgestrel in Cases of Rape: How Does It Work? ” The Linacre Quarterly , Maney Publishing, May 2014, doi:10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000017
Reardon, David C. “ The Abortion and Mental Health Controversy: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Common Ground Agreements, Disagreements, Actionable Recommendations, and Research Opportunities .” SAGE Open Medicine , SAGE Publications, 29 Oct. 2018, doi:10.1177/2050312118807624
“ CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs .” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Nov. 2019.
Bixby Center for Reproductive Health. “ Complications of Surgical Abortion : Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology .” LWW , doi:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181a2b756
" Sexual Violence: Prevalence, Dynamics and Consequences ." World Health Organizaion.
Homco, Juell B, et al. “ Reasons for Ineffective Pre-Pregnancy Contraception Use in Patients Seeking Abortion Services .” Contraception , U.S. National Library of Medicine, Dec. 2009, doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.05.127
" Working With Pregnant & Parenting Teens Tip Sheet ." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Major, Brenda, et al. " Abortion and Mental Health: Evaluating the Evidence ." American Psychological Association, doi:10.1037/a0017497
Home > SCRIPPS > SCRIPPS_STUDENT > SCRIPPS_THESES > 1516
Beyond pro-life vs. pro-choice: reproductive rights for women of color and low-income women.
Sabrina Wu Follow
Document type.
Campus Only Senior Thesis
Bachelor of Arts
W.M. Keck Science Department
Elise Ferree
Alyssa Newman
Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont .
In today’s debate over abortion, there are a multitude of additional factors to consider when restricting abortion for women of color and low-income women. The binary pro-life vs. pro-choice debate may seem like two clear-cut opposing sides, and many people find themselves agreeing firmly on one stance. However, these terms seek to implicitly portray the other stance unfavorably. Pro-life seems to imply that opponents are anti-life, or even “pro-death” and pro-choice insinuates that the opposition is “anti-choice” or favors coercion. The debate marginalizes women of color, poor women, and women from other marginalized communities because it does not take into account pre-existing conditions, such as financial incapability, harmful environmental factors and lack of social support, that restrict them from real choice to decide whether to have a child or have an abortion. Firstly, it is important to understand the complex issue of abortion in its procedure, its implications and its history in the United States, as well as the consequences upon denial of abortion and the effects of returning to a pre-Roe vs. Woe world. Abortion bans objectively affect low-income and women of color because of higher numbers of unwanted pregnancies, spatial inequalities to abortion access and its implicated costs, language barriers, financial difficulties and situational obstacles such as incarceration or environmental factors. In opposition to today’s abortion bans, it is important to get rid of the bans, prioritize women's health and work to create long-term solutions to combat economically and socially coerced abortions. We should work to reduce reasons for abortion, instead of criminalizing the procedure.
Wu, Sabrina, "Beyond Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice: Reproductive Rights for Women of Color and Low-income Women" (2020). Scripps Senior Theses . 1516. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1516
This thesis is restricted to the Claremont Colleges current faculty, students, and staff.
Since February 28, 2020
Advanced Search
Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement
Privacy Copyright
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A: A compelling pro choice abortion essay should possess a powerful thesis statement, well-researched arguments supported by credible evidence, and a clear logical structure. Additionally, incorporating personal experiences and maintaining a balanced tone can elevate the impact of your essay.
To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations.
Thesis Statement for Abortion. Abortion is a highly controversial and debated topic in today's society, and it is a matter of personal choice and moral beliefs. The debate over abortion has been ongoing for many years, and it has raised important ethical, legal, and medical issues. While some argue that abortion is a woman's right to choose ...
The Pro-Choice Argument. By Tanya Luhrmann. October 25, 1979. There are those who hold that contraception unfairly manipulates the workings of nature, and others who cannot see the fetus as a ...
Abortion has been a contentious issue over time. The abortion issue has generated a lot of debate in the public. This has led individuals to pitch their tent with the two different standpoints - the pro-life group and the pro-choice group. The two standpoints have become established over time as both groups have various arguments for their ...
The debate between pro-choice and pro-life advocates has raged on for decades. Despite signi cant political and legislative action in the recent past, abortion remains one of America's most divisive and partisan issues. This thesis examines the mission statements of reproductive rights and right to life advocacy groups. Mission state-
activism. Research was conducted through oral histories interviews with sixteen pro-choice and pro-life activists between the ages of fifty and ninety in Mid-Coast Maine and Eastern Massachusetts in the summer of 2017, and one facilitator of a past pro-choice/life discussion group. Both pro-choice and pro-life activists' moral and political ...
Pros of abortion. The pros of abortion are often highlighted in cases in which women are raped or sexually abused and a pregnancy results. Supporters of abortion argue that women should not be forced to have a baby after a horrible incident such as a rape. The baby would serve as a reminder of the rape. Some individuals also support abortion in ...
Wade effectively legalized abortion in the United. States after nearly a century of anti-abortion laws and legislation throughout much of the. country. The court ruled that "a woman's right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy. protected by the 14th amendment to the constitution," (History.com, 2018).
This thesis will examine the limitations in access to abortion and other necessary reproductive healthcare in states that are hostile to abortion rights, as well as discuss the ongoing litigation within those states between pro-choice and pro-life advocates. After analyzing the legal landscape and the different abortion laws within these states, this thesis will focus on the practical ...
Being pro-life is basically agreeing with the following statement; "Those who are pregnant have no right, they will be stuck with this baby for 9 months. Then they will raise it for the next 18 years, not taking into regard whether they have the proper resources to raise it. They should have known better.".
A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree ... statements in support of eugenics, I do not believe that this argument discredits (or even really relates to) the contemporary pro-choice stance on abortion. Deixel 3 abortion—has come to take on a new meaning.
"pro-choice"20 community itself. Mention "Pro-choice" feminist Naomi Wolf, who in a ground-breaking article in 1996, argued that the abortion-rights community should acknowledge the "fetus, in its full humanity" and that abortion causes "a real death."21 More recently, Kate Michelman, long-time president of NARAL Pro-Choice
B. Thesis statement II. Body A. Pro-choice Argument 1. Right to privacy and autonomy over body 2. The outcomes of banning abortion are worse than allowing it 3. Women will seek unsafe abortions if banned B. Pro-life Argument 1. Abortion is the taking of innocent life 2. Abortion devalues human life 3.
Argument Structure. Basically, the abortion debate comes down to one issue on either side. For the pro-life (anti-abortion) position, the main argument is that the fetus is a human being. All their literature and rhetoric will refer to the fetus as a child. For the pro-choice (for legal abortion) position, the main issue is about the value of ...
The pro-choice position protects the rights of the pregnant woman, whereas the pro-life position protects the rights of the life of the fetus (Annas, 2011, p. 129). Pro-Life Position and Arguments The pro-life position argues that abortions are ethically unjustifiable and therefore, should not be allowed. The pro-life argument can take a
The pro-choice position is perceived as "pro-abortion" to some in the U.S., but this is inaccurate. The purpose of the pro-choice movement is to ensure that all choices remain legal. Point of Conflict . The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement argues that even a nonviable ...
On one side, there is the pro-choice activist and on the other is the pro-life activist. The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the ""Argument versus Argument,"" or ...
Following past research (Jonason et al., 2022 ), we hypothesized that pro-life women would have higher levels of binding moral foundations than pro-choice women. Because moral foundations measured by MFQ and MFV correlated positively in past research (Clifford et al., 2015 ), we expected to observe the same pattern of results for both of them.
Pro-Life Arguments. abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different.
In today's debate over abortion, there are a multitude of additional factors to consider when restricting abortion for women of color and low-income women. The binary pro-life vs. pro-choice debate may seem like two clear-cut opposing sides, and many people find themselves agreeing firmly on one stance. However, these terms seek to implicitly portray the other stance unfavorably. Pro-life ...
Pro Choice And Pro Life. abortion is; "The termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to being capable of normal growth". Abortion is one of the most controversial topics today. Although there are two sides of the debate pro-choice and pro life, arguments are mainly centered around the Roe v.
Thesis Statement On Abortion. 394 Words2 Pages. Thesis Statement: Abortion has been a major topic throughout the years, there has been much debate between pro-choice and pro-life but if people can come together to reach comprises it could help society make positive progress. There are many different views and opinions on abortion in today's ...