rhetorical essay on abortion

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR Public Editor

How abortion language evolves, and journalism standards follow.

For decades, journalists have worked to separate the language in news stories about abortion from the political rhetoric used by those fighting to criminalize or decriminalize the medical procedure.

The Associated Press Stylebook , which NPR follows, encourages journalists to use precise and neutral terms. Instead of "pro-choice," use "abortion rights." Instead of "pro-life," say "anti-abortion." NPR has reinforced these policies with its own recommendations . The idea behind this guidance has been to scrub the emotional and political arguments from the language and to describe the specific issues and policies without adopting the words of the people entrenched in the political battle.

The phrase "abortion clinic" is among the terms that AP Style and NPR standards editors have cautioned journalists to be careful with. Why? There are hardly any clinics established just to provide abortions. Most clinics also deliver a range of health services, from cancer screenings to reproductive counseling. Calling such a place an abortion clinic would be inaccurate.

And yet, NPR did just that in a recent headline about the vice president's political stop at a Planned Parenthood clinic. NPR's chief Washington editor told us why he thought the language choice was appropriate.

This specific moment is possibly a small window into the way the public debate on abortion is shifting and the language in our news reports is adjusting. Our policies might need to catch up. Although "abortion clinic" is reductive, it's not necessarily perceived as pejorative. In fact, as voters in several states consider whether abortions should be protected in their state constitutions, it seems that people have a lot more practice discussing the issue of abortion.

While public support for legal abortion has remained stable since the Pew Research Center started measuring it in 1995, it's actually growing in the states that have restricted access. That support may be why those who were promoting the VP's visit to the clinic explicitly called the site an "abortion clinic." Rather than the term being derogative, it's morphed into something more neutral.

Read on to see why one reader objected to the headline and how and why an NPR editor was comfortable with the wording, at least in this specific case.

Because readers of this newsletter are interested in the state of the news, we're also spotlighting a story about a new twist in the local journalism landscape that presents a new set of ethical challenges. — Kelly McBride

FROM THE INBOX

Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. Letters are edited for length and clarity. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the NPR Contact page .

A mischaracterization of Planned Parenthood?

Holly Peters wrote on March 14: The headline for this article is: "Harris visits an abortion clinic, a first for any president or vice president." The authors of this are framing the story according to anti-abortionist rhetoric. In fact, Vice President Harris was speaking at a Planned Parenthood clinic which still provides abortions. ... Planned Parenthood as an agency provides general gynecologic healthcare. When I was uninsured, I went to Planned Parenthood for my annual pap smear and exam. This kind of headline skews the issue towards polarization.

Vice President Kamala Harris visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saint Paul, Minn., on March 14. "The White House believes this is the first time any U.S. president or vice president has visited a facility that provides abortions along with other reproductive care," NPR's digital story reported. On Morning Edition , White House correspondent Deepa Shivaram described the clinic as a facility that provides reproductive care, in addition to abortions, including birth control and preventative care.

We contacted the Washington Desk to ask about the angle of the story. Krishnadev Calamur, NPR's chief Washington editor, said he did not feel that the story was framed with anti-abortion rhetoric.

"The Biden campaign has made abortion rights a centerpiece of its reelection strategy," he wrote in an email. "And it's no coincidence that after several events where she has met with patients who have received abortions, and doctors who have performed them, the vice president went to a facility that provides abortion services."

Calamur said the decision to have Harris visit an abortion-providing facility in a swing state was strategic, and it highlighted the contrasting abortion viewpoints of the campaigns of both President Biden and former President Donald Trump. That was the story's focus, he said.

"The job of reporters on our desk is to provide the political context to decisions by politicians — and this is why we framed the visit the way we did," Calamur said.

The story reported that Harris met with Dr. Sarah Traxler, the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood North Central States. The doctor said she is "a proud abortion provider," and called the visit "historic." Planned Parenthood North Central States' website reflects this sentiment with this statement at the top of its homepage: "We are proud to offer abortion care in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska. We are here for you and we'll help you find the care you need."

While the story focused on the newsworthiness of a vice president stopping at a clinic that provides abortion services, both versions of the story noted that the Planned Parenthood facility offers other reproductive care. Because Harris' expressed goal in visiting the clinic was, in part, to focus on the Democrats' support for access to abortion, NPR's choice to describe the medical office as an "abortion clinic" in the headline was accurate, appropriate and fair. — Emily Barske Wood

SPOTLIGHT ON

The Public Editor spends a lot of time examining moments where NPR fell short. Yet we also learn a lot about NPR by looking at work that we find to be compelling and excellent journalism. Here we share a line or two about the pieces where NPR shines.

News mirages: When the largest company in town steps in to fill a void

There's one primary local news site covering Richmond, Calif.: The Richmond Standard . It's owned by Chevron, and named for a previous company, Standard Oil. Chevron owns a refinery in town, which happens to be the largest employer. It's also the largest taxpayer and one of the causes of environmental pollution in the working-class community of 115,000 people. NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik and Miranda Green, director of investigations for the news site Floodlight, went to Richmond to see what that means for news consumers. The Standard has created what Folkenflik and Green call "a news mirage," an image that the community is served by a comprehensive news provider. The news site covers road closures and community events, but prioritizes Chevron's messaging over community information needs. For instance, the site did not cover a 2021 spill at the refinery that dumped diesel fuel into San Francisco Bay. The report suggests that news mirages may become more frequent in the local news landscape. This deep investigation is a worthwhile listen if you care about the future of local news. Folkenflik and Green share even more insights on the daily podcast Consider This from NPR with host Mary Louise Kelly. — Amaris Castillo

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Emily Barske Wood and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook , Twitter and from our inbox . As always, keep them coming.

Kelly McBride NPR Public Editor Chair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute

• word choice
• journalism ethics
• spotlight on

• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Online hoaxes
• Coronavirus
• Health Care
• Immigration
• Environment
• Foreign Policy
• Kamala Harris
• Donald Trump
• Mitch McConnell
• Hakeem Jeffries
• Ron DeSantis
• Tucker Carlson
• Sean Hannity
• Rachel Maddow
• PolitiFact Videos
• 2024 Elections
• Mostly True
• Mostly False
• Pants on Fire
• Biden Promise Tracker
• Trump-O-Meter
• Latest Promises
• Our Process
• Who pays for PolitiFact?
• Advertise with Us
• Suggest a Fact-check
• Corrections and Updates
• Newsletters

Get PolitiFact in your inbox.

• Weekly Email Newsletter
• Daily Email Newsletter

The meaning, history and political rhetoric surrounding the term abortion ‘ban’

• Legal Issues
• Public Health

A supporter holds up a sign during Missourians for Constitutionals Freedom petition drive on Feb. 6, 2024, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP)

Ban: Merriam-Webster defines it as "a legal or formal prohibition." But in the 2024 election cycle — the first general election since Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that enshrined a constitutional right to an abortion, was overturned — the term has morphed into polarizing political rhetoric. "Ban" has become synonymous with abortion and the wave of anti-abortion laws enacted in states across the country. For example, on President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign website, the abortion policy page’s title reads: "Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide. Re-elect Joe Biden to stop him and protect reproductive freedom." 

Trump appointed three of the U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe. After years of inconsistency, Trump most recently has said that laws on abortion should be left to the states and that he wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban. Many Democrats and abortion rights activists have also zeroed in on down-ballot Republicans, accusing them of supporting abortion "bans," even if their positions allow for some access.

"Yesterday, we celebrated Mother’s Day. Today, I remind you that politicians like Bernie Moreno, who supports a national abortion ban, don’t want moms making their own healthcare decisions. Abortion rights are on Ohio's ballot again in 2024," Ohio Democrat Allison Russo wrote May 13 on X . 

Moreno, who has Trump’s support, is a Republican running for Senate in Ohio against Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown. Moreno has said that he would vote for a 15-week national abortion ban.

Political discourse experts say "ban" has emerged as shorthand for nearly all abortion prohibitions. The blunt term, nuanced in its myriad interpretations, often leaves room for political spin.

"Ban" is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently. 

The word has two main rhetorical functions, political discourse experts said. When people talk to like-minded people about a particular issue, it can reinforce the group’s beliefs. Or, it can label opponents as "extreme."

"For example, when Joe Biden talks about an assault weapon ban, he’s not trying to convert skeptics — he’s signaling to people who already agree with them that they’re on the same team," said Ryan Skinnell, an associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San Jose State University. "But the other way ‘ban’ works is to identify someone you disagree with as extreme. Groups who want to keep certain books out of libraries, for instance, rarely describe themselves as in support of book banning. Their opponents adopt that language."

This dual usage reflects in the abortion fight. Abortion-rights activists use "ban" to signal an infringement on personal freedom and autonomy over medical decisions. Anti-abortion proponents may use "ban" to signal a protection of fetal life. For example, when introducing legislation that bans abortion at various stages, Republican politicians have often framed the bills as moral imperatives that protect unborn life.

Peter Loge, a George Washington University professor who directs the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, said ban has historically meant "to eliminate" or "not have," but politicians employ a strategic ambiguity that allows listeners to assign their own meaning. Loge, who served as a senior adviser in former President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration, said Obama did this with one of his campaign slogans: "Change We Can Believe In." 

"Well, what does ‘change’ mean? Clearly, it means whatever he thinks it means, but as a listener you will ascribe it to mean whatever you think it means," Loge said. "So, if I think most abortions should be illegal and in some cases it's OK, I can support a ban, because it's a ban with exceptions. The listener plugs in whatever caveats they prefer and ascribes them to the speaker. This is a technique as far back as Aristotle, who wrote that the listener provides the reasoning for themselves."

Loge, like Skinnell, said "ban" is often used in politics to showcase extremism and the threat of something being taken away.

"It’s the rhetoric of anger. ‘They want to take your rights from you. … Now it’s an ideological divide and it works because we’re going to be more motivated to vote," Loge said. "People are more concerned about losing something they have than they are interested in getting something new. We are risk-averse." Nathan Stormer, a rhetoric professor at the University of Maine and an expert in abortion rhetoric, said the term usually shows up when people refer to making abortion illegal in pregnancy’s earlier stages. But, he added, although common usage typically refers to a first trimester threshold, there is "no set of rules."

"Because it is not a consistently used term, I think when people do not specify what they are referring to, others may take them to mean at conception or very early, but one has to inquire about context," Stormer wrote in an email. 

Before the 1970s, there was little discussion about abortion bans. Although legal abortion existed in various states at various stages before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, the ruling’s enshrinement of abortion rights across the country, helped galvanize opposition and mobilize anti-abortion groups. "There were book bans, pornography bans, dancing bans, and so on. But even most conservative politicians and church groups weren’t especially concerned with abortion as an issue, and there was virtually no concerted political interest in bans," Skinnell, from San Jose University, said. "That began to change with Richard Nixon." Skinnell said the former president’s advisers, in coordination with evangelical Christian church leaders, determined they could connect abortion to left-wing social movements, such as feminism, by linking them consistently in speeches and campaign materials. 

"The idea of abortion bans came directly out of that partnership," Skinnell said, "and it gathered steam in right-wing and conservative circles throughout the next few decades." Republicans further popularized the term in the mid-1990s, when they advocated for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003. The campaign to pass that legislation, experts said, introduced the term "ban" as the abortion restriction’s "stated intent."  

Political rhetoric experts said much of the medical literature and media coverage before Roe v. Wade often used terms such as "illegal" because abortion was considered a criminal act in most states. 

"Even in the early stages of criminalizing abortion in the U.S., I don't think ban was a common term," Stormer said. "When a restriction is being put in place where before there was not one, people tend to resort to the word ban."

Emily Winderman, a University of Minnesota professor specializing in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, said that over time abortion "bans" have manifested  as "incremental" restrictions throughout gestational development to the complete prohibitions seen in multiple states today.

For instance, she said, "heartbeat bills," which typically refer to laws that make abortion illegal as early as six weeks of pregnancy, were controversial when they emerged around 2010, but have become more prevalent since the Trump administration and Roe’s overturning. 

Winderman also said bans can appear via code and ordinance restrictions, such as banning  the type of use for a particular piece of real estate — making abortion clinics impossible to place.

"It's important to understand bans as a complex strategy that includes gestational limits as well as limitations on who can provide care and where," she said. 

Shifting abortion laws across the U.S. have made "ban" an increasingly common term. Forty-one states now ban abortion at different points in pregnancy — 14 enforce total bans, three enforce six-week bans and others restrict abortion before fetal viability.

Stormer, from the University of Maine, pointed to Arizona’s Supreme Court reinstating an 1864 law that completely banned abortion. (It has since been repealed. ) At the time the law was written, conception was not well understood, and there was no clear sense of fertilization or how it worked.

"Reinstating that law was a great example of how the conflict over abortion has remained steady and largely recognizable, but its terms and understandings have been constantly moving, which says something," Stormer said. "So, specific words do important work, but they do not capture what is happening rhetorically, in my opinion. The moving terminologies are the waves crashing, but the tides are the thing."

RELATED: The top claims about abortion, fact-checked  

RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working?

Our Sources

JoeBiden.com, Abortion , accessed May 13, 2024 

X post , May 13, 2024

X post , May 10, 2024 

Politico, Trump said it’s up to the states to decide abortion. Here’s everything else he didn’t say , April 9, 2024  

WBUR, The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate , June 28, 2010 

Quarterly Journal of Speech, Rhetorical strategies for retrieving abortion rights , September 2022 

Merriam-Webster, Ban definition and meaning, Accessed May 1, 2024 

Justia.com, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)   

Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health, A Brief History of Abortion in the U.S. , 2022

Guttmacher Institute, State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy , Updated May 1, 2024 

Email interview, Emily Winderman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in the rhetorical study of health and medicine, April 15, 2024

Email interview, Nathan Stormer, rhetoric professor and expert in abortion rhetoric at the University of Maine, May 6, 2024

Email interview, Ryan Skinnell, associate professor of rhetoric and writing at San José State University, May 10, 2024

Phone interview, Peter Loge,a professor at George Washington University and director of the school’s Project on Ethics in Political Communication, May 10, 2024

Email interview, Lisa Corrigan, professor of communication at the University of Arkansas, May 13, 2023  

Browse the Truth-O-Meter

More by samantha putterman.

Center for American Progress

Rhetoric vs. Reality: How Abortion Bans Hurt Women

Abortion bans are unnecessary, based on false information, and impede women's rights and access to critical health care.

Strengthening Health, Reproductive Justice, Women’s Health and Rights, Women’s Issues +2 More

Media Contact

Sarah nadeau.

Associate Director, Media Relations

[email protected]

Julia Cusick

Vice President, Communications

Government Affairs

Madeline shepherd.

Senior Director, Government Affairs

Throughout the 2017 congressional cycle, several bans were introduced that restrict women’s access to abortion. These bans were designed to impede access at various arbitrary points within gestation—after six weeks or 20 weeks, for example—or to prevent access to abortion on the basis of various reasons. These bans are dangerous for women, medically unnecessary, and based on misinformation and junk science.

The danger of abortion bans becoming law and threatening the promise of Roe v. Wad e is significant. In early October 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 237-189 to pass legislation banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and the Senate will likely vote on the bill in early 2018. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence vocalized their support for the bill at the annual March for Life this January, indicating that in the case of a tie, the executive branch will wield their power to advance anti-choice legislation. Further, President Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court could protect anti-choice legislation if challenged judicially on the basis of Roe vs. Wade . The federal 20-week abortion ban idea originated at the state level : 20-week abortion bans are currently law in 21 states.

Another extreme abortion ban—the six-week abortion ban—was introduced at the federal level last year, also drawn from state legislatures. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) narrated a sonogram during a hearing on the bill , claiming that “[I]t’s time to emancipate every little unborn baby.” The House has yet to vote on the bill and it is unlikely to pass into legislation, but the introduction itself indicates a commitment on the part of extremist anti-choice legislators to limit access to abortion at all points of the pregnancy.

Other abortion bans—including bans criminalizing abortion on the basis of sex discrimination or a fetal diagnosis—have also made headway on the state level and are predicted to surface at the federal level. Currently, eight states ban abortion for reasons of sex selection, and three states ban abortions for reasons of genetic anomaly—Ohio being the most recent to pass an abortion ban based on diagnoses of Down syndrome.

The Trump administration and anti-choice members of Congress have spent a significant portion of 2017 touting misinformation in order to pass anti-choice laws. It is critical to examine the false science and misogyny behind such bans and create widespread awareness of the safety and necessity of abortion for women’s well-being and economic success.

Myth: Abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation are dangerous

Reality : Abortions during this stage of pregnancy are incredibly rare : Only 1 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks. However, abortions performed after 20 weeks of gestation, when performed by a trained physician, are safe and often medically critical for the health of the mother. Twenty weeks is an arbitrary cutoff point for lawmakers to interfere with women’s personal decision-making by denying them critical health care. Women should receive support in their efforts to obtain safe, legal abortion at various points throughout their pregnancies.

While these procedures can be complicated, they are necessary for medical reasons discovered later in pregnancies; dramatically changed life circumstances; or an inability to attain abortion earlier in the pregnancy for a variety of reasons. For example, many women who undergo abortions after 20 weeks have learned that the fetus has developed a medical condition that would prevent survival outside of the womb. Twenty-week abortion bans disproportionately affect low-income women and women of color, as these groups disproportionately experience unintended pregnancies as well as financial insecurity and a lack of insurance coverage.

Myth: 20-week abortion bans are based on sound science that supports the claim that fetuses are capable of pain at 20 weeks

Reality : Anti-choice legislators have repeatedly claimed that fetuses at 20-weeks’ gestation are capable of feeling pain—hence the necessity of a 20-week ban. The most recent federal attempt to pass a 20-week abortion ban was based on the notion that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation.  However, there is very weak evidence to support this claim. Anti-choice legislators have relied upon the findings of an outlier physician, Dr. Kanwalgeet “Sunny” Anand, who has argued that abortion after 20 weeks of gestation causes fetuses “severe and excruciating pain.” Dr. Anand’s findings go against an established body of evidence that shows fetuses develop the brain connections required to feel pain only around at least 24 weeks of gestation.

Myth: A 6-week abortion ban would not have a significant impact on most women

Reality : A six-week abortion ban would essentially ban abortion entirely , as most women do not even realize that they’re pregnant before six weeks of gestation. A six-week abortion ban is a tactical effort to get a 20-week ban passed, as a six-week ban makes a 20-week ban seem less extreme. In 2016, the Ohio legislature passed both a six-week and 20-week ban; however, Gov. John Kasich (R) vetoed the former while signing the latter, citing the potential of legal challenges as well as constitutionality as his rationale. While the six-week ban is unlikely to pass into law, the sheer existence of the ban threatens the legality of a woman’s right to choose abortion—reflecting a dangerous threat to the promise of Roe v. Wade . Meanwhile, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has spoken out against e six-week abortion ban “violates the Constitution, will serve as outright ban on abortion for most women, and will prohibit health care providers from providing ethical, necessary care to their patients.”

Myth: Abortion bans prevent women from pursuing abortions on the basis of discriminating against disability or sex

Reality : There is very limited and inconclusive evidence that people pursue abortions for such a reason. In the case of sex-selective bans, this reasoning is used as a racially motivated tactic to criminalize abortion for the Asian-American community, who are incorrectly regarded as more likely to favor sons over daughters. For example, in 2016, two Asian-American women were prosecuted on separate feticide charges that resulted in vastly different outcomes compared with a white woman found guilty of the same charges. Sex-selective abortion bans can pave the way for increased scrutiny toward the reproductive health decisions of Asian-American women, and place undue burdens on health care providers to divulge the privacy of their clients by probing into their intent to receive an abortion.

Similarly, abortion bans that aim to prevent women from pursuing abortions because of a fetal diagnosis are based on misdirection and judgement toward women’s choices. Through these bans, anti-choice legislators are merely using the guise of support for people with disabilities to push an anti-choice agenda that punishes women for choosing a reproductive health care option that is best for her and her family. Such bans do nothing for people with disabilities to improve access to health care or education—nor do they provide education on what parenting a child with a disability entails. Additionally, these bans unnecessarily strain the relationship between patient and health care provider and hinder open and honest conversations about pregnancy.

Sign Our Letter: Ensure Meaningful Abortion Access for All

Take Action

The impact of the aforementioned abortion bans significantly impede access to abortion in a variety of ways. Abortion bans are dangerous and infringe upon women’s rights and access to health care—despite myths purported by the anti-choice movement that they protect women. By dispelling the misinformation surrounding abortion bans with evidence-based research and policy, women will have access to the care they need to make the best decisions for themselves and their families.

Anusha Ravi is a research assistant for the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress. Jamila Taylor is a senior fellow at the Center.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here . American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Anusha Ravi

Research Assistant

Jamila Taylor

Senior Fellow; Director, Women’s Health and Rights

Stay informed on the most pressing issues of our time.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice

Christopher Kaczor, The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice , Routledge, 2011, 246 pp., $39.95 (pbk), ISBN 9780415884693.

Reviewed by Don Marquis, University of Kansas

Christopher Kaczor defends the Catholic view, or what is sometimes known as the substantial identity view, of the wrongness of abortion. This is not a religious view. It is a natural law argument. Its core is the syllogism that because all human beings have a serious right to life and because human fetuses are human beings, human fetuses have a serious right to life. A human being is a biological organism that belongs to our species. Judith Thomson's famous defense of abortion does not succeed. Therefore, abortion is wrong. The minor premise of this syllogism is a true claim in biology. With the exception of the discussion of Thomson's view, the major premise is the locus of philosophical interest.

Although I believe that Kaczor's positive defense of the major premise does not succeed, this book contains much of great value. A major portion of Kaczor's book is devoted to critical discussions of views concerning the right to life that are incompatible with the major premise of the above syllogism. Many of these discussions are of great interest and have great merit. Although some of these analyses can be found elsewhere in the extensive literature on the abortion issue, Kaczor's book contains the most complete, the most penetrating and the most up-to-date set of critiques of the arguments for abortion choice presently available. It is required reading for anyone seriously interested in the abortion issue. It is a good introduction for anyone who wishes to read a serious and thoughtful account of all of the various serious philosophical views that support the right to abortion. It deserves careful study. I certainly would not endorse every single argument in the book. Nevertheless, Kaczor's book contains much good material. I highly recommend it.

Two of Kaczor's analyses are especially important. The first concerns accounts of what it is to be a person found in the writings of Michael Tooley, Peter Singer, and Mary Anne Warren. These accounts are given in psychological terms and are intended to include in the class of persons human beings after the time of infancy and to exclude human beings prior to birth. I have been inclined to take these accounts for granted, but to question the arguments for the claim that one has the right to life if and only if one is now a person in one of these psychological senses. However, Kaczor offers a thoughtful discussion in which he questions whether such accounts of being a person succeed in including everyone in the class of human beings after the time of infancy. The difficulty that Kaczor discusses concerns giving an adequate and non-arbitrary account of the capacity to exhibit psychological traits that, on the one hand, excludes fetuses and, on the other hand, includes all of those individuals past infancy who have the right to life. Kaczor shows that this task is harder than it seems. Kaczor's discussion constitutes yet another serious challenge to all those philosophers who wish to defend abortion choice by appealing to the claim that fetuses are not yet persons.

Also of particular interest and merit is Kaczor's discussion of the dualistic views Tooley and Jeff McMahan have defended at great length in recent years. Both defend the claim that, because we are essentially persons, we are essentially brains capable of thought. This brain essentialism implies that we did not come into existence until the last part of pregnancy. Kaczor draws on the writings of David Hershenov, Eric Olson, and Matthew Liao to construct a critique of this brain essentialist view. Kaczor's analysis of brain essentialism is a forceful critique of the Tooley-McMahan view. Furthermore, it is a nice summary of the best of the recent literature critical of brain essentialism. This book is worth reading just for this incisive account.

Kaczor's book is organized in the following way. Kaczor treats 'is a person' as synonymous with 'has a serious right to life'. Kaczor's book is divided into chapters most of which have titles of the form "Does Personhood Begin at X?" Substitution instances of 'at X' are 'after birth' 'at birth' 'during pregnancy' 'at conception' 'when the product of conception is no longer an embryo'. He also discusses Thomson's famous defense of abortion and "hard cases". A final chapter is concerned with artificial wombs.

Of course, it is not at all surprising that a book on abortion written by an author in the Catholic tradition should have this organization, but it is less than optimal. One problem is that the term 'person' has become fixed in the mind of philosophers familiar with the philosophical pro-choice tradition as having roughly the meaning that Mary Anne Warren famously attributed to it. To adopt another use of 'person' for the architecture of one's book appears to build a bias into one's analysis. The other problem is that much of this book is concerned with critical analyses of the views of others, and the views of others often don't fit well into the categories outlined by Kaczor's chapters. However, these complaints are -- in the final analysis -- matters of presentation only and such matters do not need to get in the way of the pleasure one can receive from reading this fine book.

Kaczor's positive defense of the claim that all human beings have the right to life is weaker than the rest of the book. On the one hand, to those not familiar with the philosophical literature on abortion, this proposition seems an obvious, and widely accepted, moral truth. It is, no doubt, difficult to forego the obvious rhetorical advantage obtained by basing one's view on this widely accepted claim. On the other hand, this claim has been subjected to two major criticisms, both set out clearly by Peter Singer over thirty years ago in Practical Ethics , and both discussed by Kaczor. The first can be called 'the speciesism objection'. 'Human being' is a biological concept. The wrongness of racism and sexism is based on the fact that biological properties have, all by themselves, no moral significance whatsoever. If this is so, then it seems to follow that the biological property of being a member of our species has no moral significance whatsoever, unless we equivocate on some notion like 'truly human'.

Kaczor calls the second criticism 'the over-commitment objection'. The claim that all human beings have a serious right to life seems to imply that a human being who is in an irreversibly unconscious state, such as an anencephalic child or someone who has experienced severe trauma to her brain or is totally brain dead, has a serious right to life. It certainly seems counterintuitive to suppose that it would be as wrong to end the life of such a human being as it would be to end the life of you or me. Indeed, perhaps it is not wrong at all. There is a basis for this intuition. Most of you do not believe that, if you were in such a state, an action or an inaction that would end your life would result in a diminution of your life prospects you would ever care about. Any serious defense of Kaczor's major premise requires dealing with these standard objections. Kaczor tries to deal with them. Is he successful?

Kaczor deals with the speciesism objection by offering a number of arguments. First, he appeals to the argument that since there are no other ethically relevant differences between ourselves and younger humans, and since we have the right to life, all human beings have the right to life. However, such an argument by elimination is hardly a firm foundation for a position that flies in the face of the important value of reproductive choice. After all, how can we be sure that we have surveyed all of the other potentially ethically relevant differences? Second, Kaczor treats the speciesism objection as merely linguistic. However, this suggests only that he has not come to grips with its strongest version. Third, Kaczor argues that the right to life must be based upon endowment, not performance. What people are capable of doing comes in degrees. This is incompatible with our commitment to human equality. Therefore, the right to life must be based on our endowment, on the genetics that we have in common with all other human beings. This, I am afraid, looks a good deal like the earlier argument by elimination that is surely insufficient as a basis for the right to life. Furthermore, one wonders why the right to life cannot be an equal right that one obtains by meeting some performance threshold, just as all students who pass their junior year in high school have the equal right to enroll for their senior year, whether they passed their junior year with flying colors or barely eked out passing grades.

Kaczor's strongest argument appeals to what he describes as the orientation of all human beings toward freedom and reason. The virtue of this move is that it gets our values into the account of the basis for our rights. The trouble with this move is that either this orientation is entirely a matter of the genetics that make us members of the human species or it is not. On the one hand, if it is just a matter of our human genetics, then, perhaps, it may yield the equality of all human beings. The trouble is that some individuals who are genetically enough like us to be counted as humans, such as the irreversibly unconscious, are not capable of freedom and reason. Therefore, the human genetics criterion divorces Kaczor's criterion of the right to life from the fact that as humans we (typically) value freedom and reason. On the other hand, if our orientation toward freedom and reason depends upon factors other than our genetic code, then we can retain a value-based criterion for the right to life, but anencephalic human beings, the severely retarded and severely demented, and those who have suffered the fate of being rendered irreversibly unconscious will lack the right to life. Therefore, it will be false that all humans have the right to life. The claim that our species is defined as the class of rational animals only avoids this problem by a shallow linguistic move. Each human who is irreversibly unconscious is, after all, a member of a species, the typical members of which are rational animals, even if she is not herself a rational animal. This point can be put in the following way. We can distinguish between those who are directly and those who are indirectly rational animals. A successful argument will not rest on obscuring this distinction.

Of course, the difficulty to which I am referring is what Kaczor calls 'the over-commitment objection'. (116-119). If all humans have the right to life, then we seem to be committed to too much. Kaczor's responses to this objection are sketchy at best. He suggests that one might want to hold that "the right to life is an alienable right, or that neocortical death should be defined as death or that human beings in permanent comas have a different right to life than human beings in temporary comas." (119) He concludes that the view that all human beings have the right to life does not necessarily lead to the view that it is wrong to end the lives of those who cannot be characterized directly as rational animals.

This is an almost unbelievably weak response to what Kaczor recognizes is one of the major objections to his positive account of the right to life. It certainly will not persuade those who wonder whether Kaczor's appeal to equality considerations to justify the right to life of all human beings is consistent with the view that the permanently comatose may have a different (read 'lesser') right to life than the rest of us. It will certainly not persuade those who agree with the orthodox Vatican view that not to provide ordinary care, such as food and water, to any human being, no matter how profoundly disabled, is intentionally to end an innocent human life and is, therefore, wrong. It will certainly not persuade anyone who is convinced (as I am) by the arguments of Alan Shewmon that the death of the brain is not sufficient for the death of a human being. It will not persuade anyone who recognizes that the arguments for the neocortical definition of death depend on the doctrine of brain essentialism, a doctrine Kaczor so emphatically rejects.

Even if all of these difficulties survive analysis, it does not follow that abortion is morally permissible. Nevertheless, it does imply that the major premise of the syllogism that Kaczor endorses as the basis for his view should be rejected. Kaczor's weak arguments are not a sufficient basis for overriding the important value of reproductive choice.

• Clerc Center | PK-12 & Outreach
• KDES | PK-8th Grade School (D.C. Metro Area)
• MSSD | 9th-12th Grade School (Nationwide)
• Gallaudet University Regional Centers
• Parent Advocacy App
• K-12 ASL Content Standards
• National Resources
• Youth Programs
• Academic Bowl
• Battle Of The Books
• National Literary Competition
• Youth Debate Bowl
• Youth Esports Series
• Bison Sports Camp
• Discover College and Careers (DC²)
• Financial Wizards
• Immerse Into ASL
• Alumni Relations
• Alumni Association
• Homecoming Weekend
• Class Giving
• Get Tickets / BisonPass
• Sport Calendars
• Cross Country
• Swimming & Diving
• Track & Field
• Indoor Track & Field
• Cheerleading
• Winter Cheerleading
• Human Resources
• Plan a Visit
• Request Info

• Areas of Study
• Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• American Sign Language
• Art and Media Design
• Communication Studies
• Criminal Justice
• Data Science
• Deaf Studies
• Early Intervention Studies Graduate Programs
• Educational Neuroscience
• Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Information Technology
• International Development
• Interpretation and Translation
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Philosophy and Religion
• Physical Education & Recreation
• Public Affairs
• Public Health
• Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Theatre and Dance
• World Languages and Cultures
• B.A. in American Sign Language
• B.A. in Biology
• B.A. in Communication Studies
• B.A. in Communication Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Deaf Studies
• B.A. in Deaf Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Early Childhood Education
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Elementary Education
• B.A. in English
• B.A. in English for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Government
• B.A. in Government with a Specialization in Law
• B.A. in History
• B.A. in Interdisciplinary Spanish
• B.A. in International Studies
• B.A. in Mathematics
• B.A. in Philosophy
• B.A. in Psychology
• B.A. in Psychology for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Social Work (BSW)
• B.A. in Sociology with a concentration in Criminology
• B.A. in Theatre Arts: Production/Performance
• B.A. or B.S. in Education with a Specialization in Secondary Education: Science, English, Mathematics or Social Studies
• B.S. in Accounting
• B.S. in Accounting for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Biology
• B.S. in Business Administration
• B.S. in Business Administration for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Data Science
• B.S. in Information Technology
• B.S. in Mathematics
• B.S. in Physical Education and Recreation
• B.S. in Public Health
• B.S. in Risk Management and Insurance
• General Education
• Honors Program
• Peace Corps Prep program
• Self-Directed Major
• M.A. in Counseling: Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• M.A. in Counseling: School Counseling
• M.A. in Deaf Education
• M.A. in Deaf Education Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Cultural Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights
• M.A. in Early Childhood Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Early Intervention Studies
• M.A. in Elementary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in International Development
• M.A. in Interpretation: Combined Interpreting Practice and Research
• M.A. in Interpretation: Interpreting Research
• M.A. in Linguistics
• M.A. in Secondary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Sign Language Education
• M.S. in Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology
• Master of Public Administration
• Master of Social Work (MSW)
• Au.D. in Audiology
• Ed.D. in Transformational Leadership and Administration in Deaf Education
• Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology
• Ph.D. in Critical Studies in the Education of Deaf Learners
• Ph.D. in Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Ph.D. in Linguistics
• Ph.D. in Translation and Interpreting Studies
• Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience (PEN)
• Psy.D. in School Psychology
• Individual Courses and Training
• National Caregiver Certification Course
• CASLI Test Prep Courses
• Course Sections
• Certificates
• Certificate in Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Educating Deaf Students with Disabilities (online, post-bachelor’s)
• American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5 (online, post-bachelor’s)
• Early Intervention Studies
• Certificate in American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5
• Online Degree Programs
• ODCP Minor in Communication Studies
• ODCP Minor in Deaf Studies
• ODCP Minor in Psychology
• ODCP Minor in Writing
• University Capstone Honors for Online Degree Completion Program

Quick Links

• PK-12 & Outreach
• NSO Schedule

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

202.448-7036

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

By Rory H. Osbrink

Abortion is an example of a very controversial issue. The two opposing viewpoints surrounding abortion are like two sides of a coin. 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, “”Block-by-Block”” format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments surrounding one side of the issue, then you present all the arguments surrounding the other side of the issue. You are generally not expected to reach a conclusion, but simply to present the opposing sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined) Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Block-by-Block Format

One of the most divisive issues in America is the controversy surrounding abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in America, and many people believe that it should remain legal. These people, pro-choice activists, believe that it is the women’s right to chose whether or not to give birth. However, there are many groups who are lobbying Congress to pass laws that would make abortion illegal. These people are called the pro-life activists.

Explains pro-choice

Abortion is a choice that should be decided by each individual, argues the pro-choice activist. Abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet fully human, therefore, it is not in defiance against God. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, it should be the woman’s choice because it is her body. While adoption is an option some women chose, many women do not want to suffer the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and labor only to give up a child. Therefore, laws should remain in effect that protect a woman’s right to chose.

Explains pro-life

Abortion is an abomination, argues the pro-life activist. It makes no sense for a woman to murder a human being not even born. The bible says, “”Thou shalt not kill,”” and it does not discriminate between different stages of life. A fetus is the beginning of life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is in direct defiance of God’s will. Regardless of the mother’s life situation (many women who abort are poor, young, or drug users), the value of a human life cannot be measured. Therefore, laws should be passed to outlaw abortion. After all, there are plenty of couples who are willing to adopt an unwanted child.

If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments. Though it is a very personal decision, t he fate of abortion rights will have to be left for the Supreme Court to decide.

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

This second example is also an essay about abortion. We have used the same information and line of reasoning in this essay, however, this one will be presented in the “”Point-by-Point”” style argument. The Point-by-Point style argument presents both sides of the argument at the same time. First, you would present one point on a specific topic, then you would follow that up with the opposing point on the same topic. Again, you are generally not expected to draw any conclusions, simply to fairly present both sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined)

Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Point-by-Point Format

Point One: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God’s will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.

Point Two: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Another main point of the argument is over the woman’s personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman’s body, therefore it should be the woman’s decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.

Tutorial & Instructional Programs

Gallaudet University

202-448-7036

At a Glance

• Quick Facts
• University Leadership
• History & Traditions
• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Our 10-Year Vision: The Gallaudet Promise
• Annual Report of Achievements (ARA)
• The Signing Ecosystem
• Not Your Average University

Our Community

• Library & Archives
• Technology Support
• Interpreting Requests
• Ombuds Support
• Health and Wellness Programs
• Profile & Web Edits

Visit Gallaudet

• Explore Our Campus
• Virtual Tour
• Maps & Directions
• Shuttle Bus Schedule
• Kellogg Conference Hotel
• Welcome Center
• National Deaf Life Museum
• Apple Guide Maps

Engage Today

• Work at Gallaudet / Clerc Center
• Social Media Channels
• University Wide Events
• Sponsorship Requests
• Data Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Gallaudet Today Magazine
• Giving at Gallaudet
• Financial Aid
• Registrar’s Office
• Residence Life & Housing
• Safety & Security
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• University Communications
• Clerc Center

Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Copyright © 2024 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.

• Accessibility
• Cookie Consent Notice
• Privacy Policy
• File a Report

800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Home > Journals > Michigan Journal of Gender & Law > Vol. 2 > Iss. 1 (1994)

Article Title

Slavery Rhetoric and the Abortion Debate

Debora Threedy , University of Utah College of Law

There are many things that could be, and have been, said about the question of abortion. This article focuses on the rhetoric of the abortion debate. Specifically, I discuss how both sides of the abortion debate have appropriated the image of the slave and used that image as a rhetorical tool, a metaphor, in making legal arguments. Further, I examine the effectiveness of this metaphor as a rhetorical tool. Finally, I question the purposes behind this appropriation, and whether it reflects a lack of sensitivity to the racial content of the appropriated image.

Recommended Citation

Debora Threedy, Slavery Rhetoric and the Abortion Debate , 2 M ich. J. G ender & L. 3 (1994). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol2/iss1/2

Since September 14, 2016

Included in

Law and Gender Commons , Law and Race Commons , Rhetoric Commons , Supreme Court of the United States Commons

• Submissions
• Applications
• Subscriptions
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Advanced Search

ISSN: 1095-8835 (print)

ISSN: 2688-5565 (online)

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Abortion

How To Write A Persuasive Essay On Abortion

10 min read

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

A Catalogue of 300 Best Persuasive Essay Topics for Students

Persuasive Essay Outline - A Complete Guide

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Learn to Write a Persuasive Essay About Business With 5 Best Examples

Check Out 14 Persuasive Essays About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you about to write a persuasive essay on abortion but wondering how to begin?

Writing an effective persuasive essay on the topic of abortion can be a difficult task for many students. 

It is important to understand both sides of the issue and form an argument based on facts and logical reasoning. This requires research and understanding, which takes time and effort.

In this blog, we will provide you with some easy steps to craft a persuasive essay about abortion that is compelling and convincing. Moreover, we have included some example essays and interesting facts to read and get inspired by. 

So let's start!

• 1. How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?
• 2. Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples
• 3. Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion
• 4. Persuasive Topics about Abortion 
• 5. Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

How To Write a Persuasive Essay About Abortion?

Abortion is a controversial topic, with people having differing points of view and opinions on the matter. There are those who oppose abortion, while some people endorse pro-choice arguments. 

It is also an emotionally charged subject, so you need to be extra careful when crafting your persuasive essay.

Before you start writing your persuasive essay, you need to understand the following steps.

Step 1: Choose Your Position

The first step to writing a persuasive essay on abortion is to decide your position. Do you support the practice or are you against it? You need to make sure that you have a clear opinion before you begin writing. 

Once you have decided, research and find evidence that supports your position. This will help strengthen your argument. 

Check out the video below to get more insights into this topic:

Step 2: Choose Your Audience

The next step is to decide who your audience will be. Will you write for pro-life or pro-choice individuals? Or both? 

Knowing who you are writing for will guide your writing and help you include the most relevant facts and information. Additionally, understanding your audience will help you craft a focused thesis statement that clearly addresses their concerns and perspectives.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Step 3: Make an Outline & Define Argument

Now that you have chosen your position and identified your audience, it’s time to craft your argument. Start by clearly defining your stance on the issue and outlining the reasons behind your belief. Use evidence to support each of your claims, such as facts, statistics, or expert opinions.

To organize your thoughts, create a persuasive essay outline that maps out the structure of your essay. 

For instance, your persuasive essay on abortion outline might include:

• Introduction: Present the topic and state your thesis.
• Body Paragraph 1: Explain your first supporting argument and provide evidence.
• Body Paragraph 2: Discuss your second supporting argument with additional evidence.
• Body Paragraph 3: Address opposing arguments and provide counterarguments to refute them.
• Conclusion: Summarize your main points and restate why your position is valid.

By outlining your essay, you ensure that your argument is logical and well-structured, making your essay more balanced and convincing.

Step 4: Format Your Essay

Once you have the argument ready, it is time to craft your persuasive essay. Follow a standard format for the essay , with an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. 

Make sure that each paragraph is organized and flows smoothly. Use clear and concise language, getting straight to the point.

Step 5: Proofread and Edit

The last step in writing your persuasive essay is to make sure that you proofread and edit it carefully. Look for spelling, grammar, punctuation, or factual errors and correct them. This will help make your essay more professional and convincing.

These are the steps you need to follow when writing a persuasive essay on abortion. It is a good idea to read some examples before you start so you can know how they should be written.

Continue reading to find helpful examples.

Persuasive Essay About Abortion Examples

To help you get started, here are some example persuasive essays on abortion that may be useful for your own paper.

Here is another short persuasive essay about abortion:

Persuasive Essay About No To Abortion

Persuasive Speech on Abortion

Legal Abortion Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Persuasive Essay about legalizing abortion

You can also read m ore persuasive essay examples to imp rove your persuasive skills.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Abortion

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that presents both sides of an argument. These essays rely heavily on logic and evidence.

Here are some examples of short argumentative essays with an introduction, body, and conclusion that you can use as a reference in writing your own argumentative essay. 

Let’s take a look at another short example:

Here are some PDF examples that you can download and read for free!

Abortion Persuasive Essay Introduction

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Conclusion

Argumentative Essay About Abortion Pdf

Argumentative Essay About Abortion in the Philippines

Argumentative Essay About Abortion - Introduction

Persuasive Topics about Abortion 

If you are looking for some topics to write your persuasive essay on abortion, here are some examples:

• Should abortion be legal in the United States?
• Is it ethical to perform abortions, considering its pros and cons?
• What should be done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions?
• Is there a connection between abortion and psychological trauma?
• What are the ethical implications of abortion on demand?
• How has the debate over abortion changed over time?
• Should there be legal restrictions on late-term abortions?
• Does gender play a role in how people view abortion rights?
• Is it possible to reduce poverty and unwanted pregnancies through better sex education?
• How is the anti-abortion point of view affected by religious beliefs and values? 

These are just some of the potential topics that you can use for your persuasive essay on abortion. Think carefully about the topic you want to write about and make sure it is something that interests you. 

Check out m ore persuasive essay topics that will help you explore other things that you can write about!

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Facts About Abortion You Need to Know

Here are some facts about abortion that will help you formulate better arguments.

• According to the Guttmacher Institute , 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion.
• The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
• Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with less than a 0.5% risk of major complications.
• In the United States, 14 states have laws that restrict or ban abortion of most forms after 20 weeks gestation.
• Seven out of 198 nations allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
• In places where abortion is highly illegal, more women die during childbirth and due to complications resulting from pregnancy.
• A majority of pregnant women who opt for abortions do so for financial and social reasons.
• According to estimates, 56 million abortions occur annually.

In conclusion, these are some of the examples, steps, and topics that you can use to write a persuasive essay. Make sure to do your research thoroughly and back up your arguments with evidence. This will make your essay more professional and convincing. 

Need the services of a persuasive essay writing service ? We've got your back!

MyPerfectWords.com provides help to students in the form of professionally written essays. Our persuasive essay writer can craft quality persuasive essays on any topic, including abortion. 

So, just ask our experts ' do my essay ' and get professional help.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to start a persuasive essay about abortion.

To start a persuasive essay about abortion, begin with a compelling introduction that grabs the reader's attention and clearly presents the topic. Provide some background information on the issue and state your thesis statement, which should outline your position on the matter. Ensure your introduction sets up the argument you will be making throughout the essay.

What is a good argument for abortion?

A good argument for abortion could be that it is a woman’s choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion. It is also important to consider the potential risks of carrying a pregnancy to term.

What is a good hook for an essay about abortion?

A good hook for an essay might involve a thought-provoking question, a startling statistic, or a powerful quote. For example:

• "Did you know that nearly one in four women will have an abortion by age 45? This staggering statistic highlights the urgency of the abortion debate."
• "‘The right to choose is fundamental,’ argues many pro-choice advocates. But how does this stand against the moral objections of pro-life supporters?"

What is a persuasive speech about legalizing abortion?

A persuasive speech about legalizing abortion argues for the importance of granting individuals the right to make autonomous decisions regarding their reproductive health. It emphasizes that legalizing abortion ensures safe, regulated medical procedures, protects women's health, and supports personal autonomy. The speech often highlights the risks associated with illegal abortions, the need for access to healthcare, and the ethical consideration of allowing individuals to choose based on their unique circumstances.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Silent prayer outside of abortion clinics is a form of reproductive coercion

Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Aston University

Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham

Disclosure statement

Pam Lowe have previously received funding from the British Academy to undertake research with an abortion service provider. She is a member of Abortion Rights.

Sarah-Jane Page has received funding from the British Academy for the project, "Understanding Abortion in Catholic Communities".

University of Nottingham provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

Aston University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Christian prayer is usually an unchallenged activity in Britain, often constructed as benign or even positive. But in some contexts, prayer can be experienced as intimidating, particularly when it is deemed “out of place” or when the motives for prayer are questioned.

It is perhaps no surprise, then, that praying outside of abortion clinics is considered wrong by most of the British public .

In the wake of legislation – that has been passed but not yet enacted – to stop activism in the immediate vicinity of all abortion clinics in Britain, anti-abortion campaigners have reacted strongly , arguing that legislating against silent prayer would breach their human rights .

But anti-abortion activities at clinic sites in Britain vary enormously and are not confined to silent prayer practices. Our research on anti-abortion activism in the UK has shown that what happens during protests can change from hour to hour, depending on those present.

Some protestors will try to engage with patients, others recite prayers – either aloud or silently – while others may hold banners or candles. Some may distribute leaflets or rosary beads.

Many anti-abortion activists argue that praying outside abortion clinics offers choice and support to women, and that this would be particularly important if those women were being coerced into having an abortion.

However, activists’ deeply-held faith objections to abortion can often prevent them from understanding the intimidation and harm they can cause . Their stance also ignores that pressurising someone to continue with a pregnancy is also a form of coercion.

Just praying?

Although many anti-abortion activists state that they are “just praying”, women approaching abortion services have no idea about the intentions of the anti-abortion activists. For instance, many women are anxious or fearful because they do not know how far the activists will go to try to stop them entering the clinic.

There is often a denial by anti-abortion activists that intimidation ever happens, but as part of our research fieldwork we have witnessed women being continually harangued and followed for short distances, even when the protest event is advertised as a “peaceful prayer vigil”.

While physical violence between anti-abortion activists, clinic users or the general public is rare, it still happens . Such incidents may not be started by the anti-abortion activists, and at times the protestors may even be the target of violence and harassment from others.

But the presence of anti-abortion activists outside clinics makes the space intimidating and increases the risk of potential violence.

This also has a negative impact on the lives of local residents who speak of their concerns about not knowing the motivations of random strangers hanging around their homes, especially when it is dark.

It is not only the general public that recognises the negative impact of anti-abortion activism. We have interviewed Christians who oppose abortion but nevertheless recognise that being outside abortion clinics is not just wrong but is a “misuse of prayer” .

This view is not just held by lay people. We also found some Catholic priests who did not support prayers outside abortion clinics.

Public shaming

Drawing public attention to abortion is central to the rationale of anti-abortion activists. By standing outside abortion clinics, anti-abortion activists invite passers-by to take notice of the service and those using it. The protest is aimed at making a private healthcare decision a public spectacle.

While a huge majority in Britain support access to abortion , it remains stigmatised . By standing outside of clinics, anti-abortion activists are seeking to encourage public shaming as a way of deterring abortion.

These two key points – individual intimidation and public shaming – have been recognised in UK courts who have sought to uphold the bufferzones that already exist in a few areas.

The Supreme Court recognised that the human rights of anti-abortion activists in Northern Ireland were restricted when they were prevented from being outside of an abortion service, but it was a necessary and proportionate action to protect the rights of women seeking abortion. In particular, the irony that anti-abortion activists complain about their own loss of freedom while seeking to restrict the freedom of others was noted.

Anti-abortion activists may claim that they are outside clinics to support women but our research shows their actions are a form of reproductive coercion. Their prayers, including silent prayers, are a central part of this strategy.

It needs to be recognised that their actions are actually preying on women through individual intimidation and public shaming, and they need to take their prayers elsewhere.

• Christianity
• Reproductive rights
• Women's health
• Anti-abortion
• Give me perspective
• Anti-abortion movement

Chief Financial Officer

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Advertisement

Supported by

Beyond Restoring Roe: Democrats See Moment to ‘Reimagine’ Abortion Rights

The spotlight at the convention is a dramatic shift from just four years ago, another sign of how radically the politics of abortion have changed, and how much the party is relying on the issue to rally voters.

• Share full article

By Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer

It was one of the opening night’s most dramatic and sober moments. Three women emerged on the main stage, each in a spotlight against the darkness.

Amanda Zurawski, standing beside her husband, told of how she nearly died when her baby would not survive and she could not get abortion care in Texas. Kaitlyn Joshua spoke of bleeding, miscarrying and being turned away from two emergency rooms in Louisiana. And Hadley Duvall of Kentucky told a harrowing story of being impregnated by her stepfather at age 12.

“He calls it ‘a beautiful thing,’” she said, quoting former President Donald J. Trump’s praise for states that have enacted strict abortion bans. “What is so beautiful about a child having to carry her parent’s child?”

Audible gasps punctured the silence of the arena. Women wiped away tears. Next to her husband, Gwen Walz shook her head in apparent horror, trying to take it all in. And when the testimonies were finished, the arena rose to its feet in support.

Such a scene was unimaginable at the Democratic National Convention just four years ago, when the word “abortion” was never mentioned on the main stage. Then, it was Republicans who embraced the issue at their party convention, awarding key speaking slots to anti-abortion activists and boasting of their “pro-life” bona fides.

But in the first presidential election without the foundation of Roe in half a century, the political scripts have been inverted. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, is one of Mr. Trump’s signature accomplishments — he appointed the three Supreme Court justices whose votes proved decisive. Detailed calls for federal limits on abortion have been a central plank of the Republican Party for decades.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .