Anti- and Pro-Abortion Arguments: An Argumentative Essay

Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion felt like a settled issue to me, one my generation had inherited rather than chosen. After the Dobbs decision in 2022, I watched my campus erupt into protest and counterprotest, and suddenly the arguments I had always heard in the abstract became urgent and personal. Friends who had never talked about politics began sharing clinic fund links or attending prayer vigils. What I realized then, and what has shaped my thinking ever since, is that the abortion debate rests on two irreconcilable premises about when human life deserves legal protection and who holds authority over a pregnancy.

While I believe access to abortion must remain legal because bodily autonomy and practical health needs outweigh the moral status of early embryonic life, I recognize that my position depends on judgments about personhood that others reject with equal conviction.

I grew up in suburban Ohio, where abortion was legal but rarely discussed outside church basements and high school health class. My mother once mentioned that a cousin had terminated a pregnancy in college, speaking in the careful tone people use for family secrets. In my sophomore year at Ohio State, I took a bioethics seminar where we spent three weeks on abortion, reading philosophers like Judith Jarvis Thomson and Don Marquis. That class taught me that nearly every abortion argument hinges on an older question about what makes something a person with rights. The emotional intensity of the debate comes from the fact that we are arguing not just about policy but about the boundaries of the human community itself.

The strongest pro-choice argument, in my view, is the bodily autonomy principle: no person can be legally compelled to sustain another life with their own body, even if that life will die without such support. Thomson's violinist analogy made this clear to me when I first encountered it. If I woke up surgically connected to a famous musician who would die if disconnected before nine months, I might be callous to unplug myself, but I would not be a murderer, because I never consented to that use of my body. Pregnancy, even wanted pregnancy, imposes profound physical burdens, from nausea and torn tissue to the real risk of death, which remains higher in childbirth than in abortion. When my roommate became pregnant last spring and chose to terminate at eight weeks, she described the decision in exactly these terms: not that the embryo lacked value, but that she could not surrender her body to it for nine months and emerge the person she was trying to become.

Beyond autonomy, the practical argument for legal abortion rests on the health consequences of prohibition. Before Roe, thousands of women died or suffered infection and infertility from illegal procedures, a history my grandmother witnessed as a nurse in Cleveland in the 1960s. Countries with strict abortion bans, like El Salvador and Poland, report women prosecuted for miscarriages or forced to carry nonviable pregnancies to term, outcomes that seem crueler than the harm abortion itself prevents. Even in cases of rape, severe fetal abnormality, or danger to the pregnant person's life, abortion bans either carve out exceptions so narrow as to be useless or force suffering that serves no moral purpose. My own view shifted decisively after reading about Savita Halappanavar, who died in Ireland in 2012 because doctors refused to terminate her doomed pregnancy while a fetal heartbeat persisted. Her death convinced me that any legal framework prioritizing fetal life over the pregnant person's welfare will inevitably produce tragedies that a more permissive law would avoid.

Yet I cannot pretend the pro-life position lacks force, because it begins with a premise I find difficult to refute entirely: that a human embryo, genetically distinct and on a biological trajectory toward personhood, deserves protection from the moment of conception. My friend Ethan, who volunteers with a campus pro-life group, argues that all the qualities we associate with personhood, like consciousness and self-awareness, emerge gradually, so any line we draw after fertilization is arbitrary. If we grant rights based on potential rather than present capacity, then even a six-week embryo has the same claim to life as a newborn. He points out that we do not strip other humans of rights when they temporarily lack consciousness, as in coma patients, so why should the unborn be different? His argument troubles me because it exposes the shakiness of my own position: I believe a fetus becomes a person sometime during pregnancy, but I cannot say exactly when or why, and my uncertainty suggests I might be wrong.

What I return to, despite that uncertainty, is the lived reality of pregnancy and the impossibility of legislating such an intimate condition without inflicting harm. I think now that abortion will always be tragic in some measure, not because it is murder but because it forecloses a potential life and often represents a failure of support or circumstance. The question is not whether abortion is good but whether its legal prohibition makes the world more just. I have come to believe it does not, because the costs of forced pregnancy fall entirely on one person while the moral weight is debated by millions who will never bear it. If I could change one thing about this debate, it would be to shift our energy from arguing about fetal personhood to building a society where fewer people face the choice at all. Until then, I remain convinced that the right to choose, with all its moral complexity, must stay with the person whose body is at stake.

Did you like this example?

234

10