Conservative and Liberal Arguments on Abortion

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Access to abortion has been a contentious issue for decades. The reasons why women seek to have an abortion range from health concerns to termination of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Regardless of any given explanation, individuals who abort an unborn child are likely to face stigma from friends and families. Governments and health organizations’ move to control access to abortion led to the emergence of groups and movements supporting and opposing abortion. The liberals oppose the anti-abortionists’ or conservatives’ position that limits access to abortion, arguing that the government should not impose values and deprive women right to control their bodies.

The conservatives argue that access to abortion should be restricted because it destroys the fetus, which has full personhood. According to Von Drehle (2021), conservatives consider fetuses or embryos as unborn children. They suggest that a fetus is equivalent to a baby, only that temporal or physical location distinguishes the two and has interest about future. Therefore, the fetus has all legal rights to be protected from destruction like any other person. Abortion also harms the physical and mental health of pregnant women. This conservative argument considers women as mothers from the time of inception. Thus, making an abortion a right is issuing a ticket to breaking motherhood bonds. This perspective portrays restrictions to accessing abortion as measures to promote women’s well-being and protect them from deception and exploitation from individuals who provide abortion services (Von Drehle, 2021). Conversely, conservatives indicate that abortion is permissible in circumstances where a woman’s life is under threat and termination of the pregnancy is the only way of saving her.

The liberals advocate for the preservation of access to abortion because making it illegal is like imposing religious or personal values on people opposing it and denying women rights over their bodies. Indeed, anti-abortionists consider the act of terminating a pregnancy as immoral and ungodly. However, not everyone would have a similar point of view about abortion. Thus, making access to abortion services illegal limits constitutional rights to choosing values to uphold (Steinfels, 2018). Liberals argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore, there it has no moral values. Proponents of abortion contend that the law should not recognize a fetus as a person and abortion’s morality need to be left to individuals to decide. Restricting access to abortion is also limiting women’s jurisdiction over their bodies. Liberals argue that women have the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy or terminate it, regardless of whether it was planned or unwanted one (Steinfels, 2018). Therefore, preserving access to abortion is upholding women’s constitutional rights regarding moral values and control over their bodies.

Personhood is an important concept in the debate about abortion since the latter revolves around whether the fetus has all qualities and rights equivalent to that of a person. The conservatives hold that life starts at conception, assigning a fetus personhood merits. This perspective serves as the foundation for advocating the prohibition of abortion. On the other hand, liberals oppose fetal personhood indicating that a fetus or an embryo is just cells without features of a person. Liberals further assert that law should allow individuals to decide about fetal personhood. The conservatives’ argument about access to abortion is more plausible than liberals’ because it emphasizes the necessity of protecting the rights of unborn children and future generations. Limiting access to abortion and allowing it only under special circumstances promotes women’s physical and psychological well-being.