abortion should be banned essay

Abortion: Effects and Legalization Words: 1141
Pros and Cons of Abortion Words: 1102
Ethics in Practice: Abortion Choice Words: 4368
Abortion: Arguments in Support Words: 1382
Should Abortions be Legal? Words: 2403
The Advantages and the Dangers of Abortion Words: 1527
Abortion as a Controversy Words: 2241
Decriminalizing Abortion for Women’s Health’s Sake Words: 1371
Abortion: Comparing Advantages and Disadvantages Words: 2587
Should Abortions Be Legal? Arguments For and Against Words: 942
Abortion Legalization and Its Implications Words: 1758
The Abortion Law in Ireland and Canada Words: 1931
Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantages of Abortion Words: 2004
The Problem of Abortion Words: 641

Should Abortion Be Banned?

Introduction, arguments for banning of abortion, counterarguments and refutation, works cited.

The issue of abortion has led to divergent opinions in the US with the pro-life activists advocating its illegalization and their pro-choice counterparts arguing in its favor. Pro-choice crusaders assert that a pregnant woman ought to be accorded the right to either sire the child or carry out an abortion before birth. One rationale behind their argument is that such a lady might have been a rape victim who is not prepared to get a baby (Sedgh et al. 224). In contrast, pro-life activists affirm that options should be established instead of abortion, for example, presenting the child for adoption. The reason they give for their position is that if all women were to undertake abortion and not get any child, the continuity of human life would be threatened. Abortion is a contentious and divisive topic in the community, civilization, and politics of the United States, and numerous anti-abortion rules have been in effect in all states from around 1900.

Pro-life activists assert that other options might be preferable in place of abortion. They state that only fewer than 20% of all cases of abortion are associated with rape or even minors (Thomas et al. 358). Therefore, they maintain that among the most effective solutions to the avoidance of abortion is engaging in protected sex when is not prepared to rear a baby. A different practice would be to get the baby and present it to be cared for by other willing individuals rather than termination of its life. One might contact organizations dedicated to nurturing babies who lack proper parents or allow adoption as some amicable solutions against abortion. Some women strongly desire to have a child, which does not happen attributable to infertility. The existence of options for abortion shows that the practice is needless and condemnable regardless of the reason provided.

Pro-life crusaders state that abortion should be banned because in nearly all occurrences it makes the patient develop health complications. For example, many females have experienced hemorrhage, infections, and sometimes death during or even after abortion. Breast cancer is one of the most widespread risks of undertaking abortion attributable to the altered or disrupted structure of the mammary glands (Thomas et al. 359). Carcinogenic practices are apparent in transitional cells of females who have had an abortion. Each time a woman carries out an abortion, she increases the possibility of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, more than a quarter of the females who get abortion-associated cancer lose their lives. Irrespective of the short-lived relief following an abortion, nearly all the women and girls who carry it out report related psychological problems. Some of the signs of abortion-associated psychological problems include flashbacks, guilt, substance use/abuse, anger, suicidal thoughts, hallucination, and sexual dysfunction. Ensuing problems after abortion establishes that it is an unsafe and risky practice that ought to be banned.

Abortion should be illegalized because it is tantamount to murder as it entails the termination of the life of an already living creature. After four weeks of pregnancy, the developing embryo already has a pumping heart, and the appearance of mouth, ears, nose, limbs, and brain follows closely. During that time, there is the possibility of recording brainwaves and perception of heartbeat (White et al. 190). Additionally, there is the emergence of bones, and the unborn child begins to reflectively respond to stimuli. Since these processes are already in existence before the period of any likely abortion, it is evident that undertaking the practices should be illegal because it subjects the unborn baby to agonizing pain and suffering.

The pro-choice drive is established on the belief that no female should be compelled by the regulations in a country to have a baby contrary to her will whenever valid and substantial reasons are given. The argument provided is that siring a child should be a private familial affair, which should not be troubled. The pro-choice conviction is based on the notion that the life of a person begins after birth (Aiken et al. 396). Nevertheless, the American Life League marks a pro-life group that maintains that the right to life should be given to a human being from the fertilization phase hence the need to illegalize abortion.

Consistent with the affirmations of the pro-choice crusaders, bestowing on the embryo or fetus the sense of life infringes the rights of pregnant women for interfering with their independence. Additionally, banning abortion is a way of hindering girls from obtaining the help of health providers when they require tackling some medical concerns. Calling for the illegalization of abortion is being insensitive. For example, illegalization disregards how the education and later life of a teenager who becomes pregnant out of rape are irreparably damaged. This would lead to some female students becoming truants or school dropouts (Jones and Jerman 4). Another aspect that is ignored in the illegalization of abortion is the trauma that a family would suffer while nurturing an unwanted baby. Nonetheless, since there is only a small proportion of teenagers who become pregnant after incidences of rape, the illegalization of abortion would have an insignificant impact on adolescent girls.

The pro-choice movement is convinced that pro-life activists do not consider the fact that the law (such as the illegalization of abortion) will not prevent girls from becoming pregnant and clandestinely going for an abortion. Additionally, although most narcotic drugs are illegal, people are still using them secretly (Sedgh et al. 227). In the same way, enacting laws that illegalize abortion will result in many pregnant girls having abortions in unsafe settings that may leave them at the risk of death over and above the termination of the life of the embryo or fetus. The point is that if a pregnant woman or lady carries an unwanted pregnancy and has the determination of aborting it, they will still do it regardless of whether it is legal or banned. It is irrational for some people to put much significance on the need for an unborn child to live while overlooking the degree to which such a practice jeopardizes the mother’s life and welfare. However, it is imperative for laws to be enacted to control vices devoid of providing reasons for the irrelevance of such regulations.

Abortion leads to the intentional termination of a pregnancy prior to birth. It has elicited mixed feelings with one group establishing that pregnant girl should have the independence of either aborting or bearing the child. However, a different group asserts that options such as adoption should be practiced rather than abortion that denies the unborn child the right to life. Abortion is an argumentative and divisive subject in American civilization, community, and politics, and many anti-abortion guidelines have been in operation in all states since about 1900. Since the illegalization of abortion outshines the advocacy for its legalization, the practice should be banned.

Aiken, Abigail, et al. “Requests for Abortion in Latin America in the Wake of Zika Virus.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 375, no. 4, 2016, pp. 396-400.

Jones, Rachel, and Jenna Jerman. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 46, no. 1, 2014, pp. 3-14.

Sedgh, Gilda, et al. “Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth, and Abortion Rates across Countries: Levels and Recent Trends.” Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 56, no. 2, 2015, pp. 223-230.

Thomas, Rachel, et al. “Anti-Legal Attitude toward Abortion among Abortion Patients in the United States.” Contraception, vol. 96, no. 5, 2017, pp. 357-364.

White, Kari, et al. “Women’s Knowledge of and Support for Abortion Restrictions in Texas: Findings from a Statewide Representative Survey.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 48, no. 4, 2016, pp. 189-197.

Cite this paper

Chicago (N-B)
Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 7). Should Abortion Be Banned? https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/

"Should Abortion Be Banned?" StudyCorgi , 7 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Should Abortion Be Banned'. 7 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Should Abortion Be Banned?" March 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-abortion-be-banned/.

This paper, “Should Abortion Be Banned?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: July 24, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Abortion — Should Abortion Be Banned

Should Abortion Be Banned

Categories: Abortion Women's Rights

About this sample

Words: 607 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 607 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Women's rights, society and ethics.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 926 words

4 pages / 1854 words

1 pages / 619 words

3 pages / 1181 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Abortion

Abortion has been a controversial topic for decades, sparking heated debates and dividing societies. However, the legalization of abortion is crucial for women's rights, health, and autonomy. In this essay, we will explore the [...]

Abortion has been a highly controversial and divisive issue in many societies worldwide. The legality of abortion varies from country to country, with some nations allowing it under certain circumstances and others prohibiting [...]

So, abortion's been a hot topic forever. It's about life, morals, and people's rights. Some folks really think it's bad news, ya know? Like, when you have an abortion, you're stopping a pregnancy and maybe ending a life. [...]

In America, abortion is a hot topic in many women’s daily lives. Ever since the Roe vs. Wade decision, protests against abortion have been common. Those who oppose it are called “pro-life” supporters. Even though it’s a [...]

Abortion can be defined as the deliberate causing of the death of a fetus, either by directly killing it or by causing its expulsion from the womb before it is “viable.” With “the killing of an innocent human being without [...]

Abortion is murder. 3000 babies are being killed every single day. In every 1000 women there are 12-13 abortions and there are 4.3 billion women in the world. I do believe it is a choice but a wrong choice because you are [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A World Without Legal Abortion: How Activists Envision A 'Post-Roe' Nation

Sarah McCammon

Anti-abortion-rights activists participate in the March for Life rally near the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24. Susan Walsh/AP hide caption

Anti-abortion-rights activists participate in the March for Life rally near the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation could open the door to a world that many anti-abortion-rights activists have been envisioning for decades.

A Look At Amy Coney Barrett's Record On Abortion Rights

"I hope and pray that we will be in a world post- Roe v. Wade ," said Carrie Murray Nellis, 41, an adoption attorney based in Georgia.

Murray Nellis is the founder of Abiding Love Adoptions, which operates in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. She hopes Barrett's confirmation will lead to the overturning of the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, which would thereby allow states to further restrict or ban the procedure.

With Roe v. Wade On The Line, Some States Take Steps To Protect Abortion Rights

Americans' Support For Abortion Rights Wanes As Pregnancy Progresses

Preparing for a post- Roe s ociety

Murray Nellis believes organizations like hers, which works primarily with birth mothers who are choosing adoption for their babies, need to be ready to help more women facing unplanned pregnancies.

"We as a pro-life community have got to get ready and get our ducks in a row," she said. "Because this could likely be happening, and I don't think we're ready."

Heather Lawless, 39, is co-founder of the Reliance Center in Idaho, which counsels women against abortion and provides services for new and expectant mothers. Stellar Styles Photography, Lewiston, Idaho hide caption

Heather Lawless, 39, is co-founder of the Reliance Center in Idaho, which counsels women against abortion and provides services for new and expectant mothers.

Persuasion and the law

A majority of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion but support Roe v. Wade , according to national polls. But activists dedicated to the goal of ending abortion in the U.S. have been organizing for decades at every level of government. They often say their goal is to make abortion both " illegal and unthinkable ."

"There's always a reason why a woman is choosing abortion," said Heather Lawless, co-founder of the Reliance Center in Idaho, which counsels women against abortion and offers free pregnancy tests and screenings for sexually transmitted infections. "And I believe that if we work together, we can provide them with the resources and the tools that they need to not make that choice."

Lawless said that this can mean helping a pregnant woman find housing or get treatment for addiction. But ultimately, she said, abortion should not be a choice.

"I don't think abortion should be legal, period. Because abortion at any stage is willfully taking a human life, and I don't think that should be legal — at all," Lawless said.

That includes, Lawless said, pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Questions of enforcement

Banning abortion would mean civil or criminal penalties for those who are convicted of violating those laws. In the post- Roe world Lawless envisions, doctors could be prosecuted for providing the procedure, though Lawless said she would not support penalties for pregnant patients.

Murray Nellis, the adoption attorney from Georgia, said she supports early-abortion bans like one passed in 2019 in her state, which critics said was less than clear about how it would be enforced and against whom. That law, as well as several other so-called "heartbeat laws" in other states, has been blocked in federal court. But advocates hope the Supreme Court might use such a law as an opportunity to reconsider Roe and related precedent.

Murray Nellis said she would not want to see patients punished if abortion were banned.

"I just think that that is cruel," she said. "I just think the responsibility and liability should be at the hands of the individual she [would be] literally paying to do something illegal."

That's the position of many of the major national anti-abortion-rights activist groups. But it's not a universal one.

Catherine Davis is the founder of the Restoration Project, a group based in Georgia that promotes an anti-abortion message primarily among African American pastors. She hopes to see abortion banned nationwide. Davis said the focus of prosecution should be on doctors, though she wouldn't rule out one day punishing women who induce their own abortions.

Catherine Davis is founder of the Restoration Project, a group in Georgia that opposes abortion rights. Charles Joseph/Courtesy Catherine Davis hide caption

"If she decides to self-abort herself, then she's subjected to the same penalty as the doctor," Davis said.

Davis said she believes abortion should be treated exactly like murder — up to and including capital punishment.

"If a doctor makes the decision in a jurisdiction that he or she knows the penalty for taking the life of another human being is the death penalty, and they decide to do it anyway, then they've subjected themselves to the death penalty," Davis said.

Punishing women?

Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller professor at Florida State University College of Law, said that while many groups opposed to abortion rights have historically said they wouldn't support laws that punish pregnant women who get abortions, the growing availability of medication to self-induce abortion at home could complicate that position.

"I don't see how you do that without punishing women, because we're going to be in an environment where women can end pregnancies without a third-party being present," she said.

Leslie Reagan is a history professor at the University of Illinois and author of the book When Abortion Was a Crime. If Roe falls, Reagan said, women will still seek out illegal and sometimes unsafe abortions, as they did before Roe .

Reagan said activists who've been organizing with that thought in mind for decades are likely to insist on enforcing state abortion bans.

"We have a movement — a religiously based movement that's led by the churches and can organize out of the church — that wants these laws changed and will want these laws enforced," Reagan said.

In written responses to Senate Judiciary Committee members, Judge Amy Coney Barrett declines to say, if Roe is overturned, whether states could: -ban IVF -make abortion, use of certain contraceptives a felony -make abortion a crime punishable by death https://t.co/WsAIacjquC pic.twitter.com/gaTJmKjxTB — Sarah McCammon📻 (@sarahmccammon) October 22, 2020

It's impossible to know how any justice might rule in a given case. But in a written exchange with Senate Judiciary Committee members, Barrett was asked if states could make getting an abortion a felony or a capital crime punishable by death.

Barrett responded that as a judge and Supreme Court nominee, "It would not be appropriate for me to offer an opinion on abstract legal issues or hypotheticals."

With Abortion Restrictions On The Rise, Some Women Induce Their Own

Supreme Court
judge amy coney barrett
punishing women

Share full article

Supported by

Ross Douthat

The Case Against Abortion

By Ross Douthat

Opinion Columnist

A striking thing about the American abortion debate is how little abortion itself is actually debated. The sensitivity and intimacy of the issue, the mixed feelings of so many Americans, mean that most politicians and even many pundits really don’t like to talk about it.

The mental habits of polarization, the assumption that the other side is always acting with hidden motives or in bad faith, mean that accusations of hypocrisy or simple evil are more commonplace than direct engagement with the pro-choice or pro-life argument.

And the Supreme Court’s outsize role in abortion policy means that the most politically important arguments are carried on by lawyers arguing constitutional theory, at one remove from the real heart of the debate.

But with the court set this week to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, it seems worth letting the lawyers handle the meta-arguments and writing about the thing itself. So this essay will offer no political or constitutional analysis. It will simply try to state the pro-life case.

At the core of our legal system, you will find a promise that human beings should be protected from lethal violence. That promise is made in different ways by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; it’s there in English common law, the Ten Commandments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We dispute how the promise should be enforced, what penalties should be involved if it is broken and what crimes might deprive someone of the right to life. But the existence of the basic right, and a fundamental duty not to kill, is pretty close to bedrock.

There is no way to seriously deny that abortion is a form of killing. At a less advanced stage of scientific understanding, it was possible to believe that the embryo or fetus was somehow inert or vegetative until so-called quickening, months into pregnancy. But we now know the embryo is not merely a cell with potential, like a sperm or ovum, or a constituent part of human tissue, like a skin cell. Rather, a distinct human organism comes into existence at conception, and every stage of your biological life, from infancy and childhood to middle age and beyond, is part of a single continuous process that began when you were just a zygote.

We know from embryology, in other words, not Scripture or philosophy, that abortion kills a unique member of the species Homo sapiens, an act that in almost every other context is forbidden by the law.

This means that the affirmative case for abortion rights is inherently exceptionalist, demanding a suspension of a principle that prevails in practically every other case. This does not automatically tell against it; exceptions as well as rules are part of law. But it means that there is a burden of proof on the pro-choice side to explain why in this case taking another human life is acceptable, indeed a protected right itself.

One way to clear this threshold would be to identify some quality that makes the unborn different in kind from other forms of human life — adult, infant, geriatric. You need an argument that acknowledges that the embryo is a distinct human organism but draws a credible distinction between human organisms and human persons , between the unborn lives you’ve excluded from the law’s protection and the rest of the human race.

In this kind of pro-choice argument and theory, personhood is often associated with some property that’s acquired well after conception: cognition, reason, self-awareness, the capacity to survive outside the womb. And a version of this idea, that human life is there in utero but human personhood develops later, fits intuitively with how many people react to a photo of an extremely early embryo ( It doesn’t look human, does it? ) — though less so to a second-trimester fetus, where the physical resemblance to a newborn is more palpable.

But the problem with this position is that it’s hard to identify exactly what property is supposed to do the work of excluding the unborn from the ranks of humans whom it is wrong to kill. If full personhood is somehow rooted in reasoning capacity or self-consciousness, then all manner of adult human beings lack it or lose it at some point or another in their lives. If the capacity for survival and self-direction is essential, then every infant would lack personhood — to say nothing of the premature babies who are unviable without extreme medical interventions but regarded, rightly, as no less human for all that.

At its most rigorous, the organism-but-not-person argument seeks to identify some stage of neurological development that supposedly marks personhood’s arrival — a transition equivalent in reverse to brain death at the end of life. But even setting aside the practical difficulties involved in identifying this point, we draw a legal line at brain death because it’s understood to be irreversible, the moment at which the human organism’s healthy function can never be restored. This is obviously not the case for an embryo on the cusp of higher brain functioning — and if you knew that a brain-dead but otherwise physically healthy person would spontaneously regain consciousness in two weeks, everyone would understand that the caregivers had an obligation to let those processes play out.

Or almost everyone, I should say. There are true rigorists who follow the logic of fetal nonpersonhood toward repugnant conclusions — for instance, that we ought to permit the euthanizing of severely disabled newborns, as the philosopher Peter Singer has argued. This is why abortion opponents have warned of a slippery slope from abortion to infanticide and involuntary euthanasia; as pure logic, the position that unborn human beings aren’t human persons can really tend that way.

But to their credit, only a small minority of abortion-rights supporters are willing to be so ruthlessly consistent. Instead, most people on the pro-choice side are content to leave their rules of personhood a little hazy, and combine them with the second potent argument for abortion rights: namely, that regardless of the precise moral status of unborn human organisms, they cannot enjoy a legal right to life because that would strip away too many rights from women.

A world without legal abortion, in this view, effectively consigns women to second-class citizenship — their ambitions limited, their privacy compromised, their bodies conscripted, their claims to full equality a lie. These kind of arguments often imply that birth is the most relevant milestone for defining legal personhood — not because of anything that happens to the child but because it’s the moment when its life ceases to impinge so dramatically on its mother.

There is a powerful case for some kind of feminism embedded in these claims. The question is whether that case requires abortion itself.

Certain goods that should be common to men and women cannot be achieved, it’s true, if the law simply declares the sexes equal without giving weight to the disproportionate burdens that pregnancy imposes on women. Justice requires redistributing those burdens, through means both traditional and modern — holding men legally and financially responsible for all the children that they father and providing stronger financial and social support for motherhood at every stage.

But does this kind of justice for women require legal indifference to the claims of the unborn? Is it really necessary to found equality for one group of human beings on legal violence toward another, entirely voiceless group?

We have a certain amount of practical evidence that suggests the answer is no. Consider, for instance, that between the early 1980s and the later 2010s the abortion rate in the United States fell by more than half . The reasons for this decline are disputed, but it seems reasonable to assume that it reflects a mix of cultural change, increased contraception use and the effects of anti-abortion legal strategies, which have made abortion somewhat less available in many states, as pro-choice advocates often lament.

If there were an integral and unavoidable relationship between abortion and female equality, you would expect these declines — fewer abortions, diminished abortion access — to track with a general female retreat from education and the workplace. But no such thing has happened: Whether measured by educational attainment, managerial and professional positions, breadwinner status or even political office holding, the status of women has risen in the same America where the pro-life movement has (modestly) gained ground.

Of course, it’s always possible that female advancement would have been even more rapid, the equality of the sexes more fully and perfectly established, if the pro-life movement did not exist. Certainly in the individual female life trajectory, having an abortion rather than a baby can offer economic and educational advantages.

On a collective level, though, it’s also possible that the default to abortion as the solution to an unplanned pregnancy actually discourages other adaptations that would make American life friendlier to women. As Erika Bachiochi wrote recently in National Review , if our society assumes that “abortion is what enables women to participate in the workplace,” then corporations may prefer the abortion default to more substantial accommodations like flexible work schedules and better pay for part-time jobs — relying on the logic of abortion rights, in other words, as a reason not to adapt to the realities of childbearing and motherhood.

At the very least, I think an honest look at the patterns of the past four decades reveals a multitude of different ways to offer women greater opportunities, a multitude of paths to equality and dignity — a multitude of ways to be a feminist, in other words, that do not require yoking its idealistic vision to hundreds of thousands of acts of violence every year.

It’s also true, though, that nothing in all that multitude of policies will lift the irreducible burden of childbearing, the biological realities that simply cannot be redistributed to fathers, governments or adoptive parents. And here, too, a portion of the pro-choice argument is correct: The unique nature of pregnancy means that there has to be some limit on what state or society asks of women and some zone of privacy where the legal system fears to tread.

This is one reason the wisest anti-abortion legislation — and yes, pro-life legislation is not always wise — criminalizes the provision of abortion by third parties, rather than prosecuting the women who seek one. It’s why anti-abortion laws are rightly deemed invasive and abusive when they lead to the investigation of suspicious-seeming miscarriages. It’s why the general principle of legal protection for human life in utero may or must understandably give way in extreme cases, extreme burdens: the conception by rape, the life-threatening pregnancy.

At the same time, though, the pro-choice stress on the burden of the ordinary pregnancy can become detached from the way that actual human beings experience the world. In a famous thought experiment, the philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson once analogized an unplanned pregnancy to waking up with a famous violinist hooked up to your body, who will die if he’s disconnected before nine months have passed. It’s a vivid science-fiction image but one that only distantly resembles the actual thing that it describes — a new life that usually exists because of a freely chosen sexual encounter, a reproductive experience that if material circumstances were changed might be desired and celebrated, a “disconnection” of the new life that cannot happen without lethal violence and a victim who is not some adult stranger but the woman’s child.

One can accept pro-choice logic, then, insofar as it demands a sphere of female privacy and warns constantly against the potential for abuse, without following that logic all the way to a general right to abort an unborn human life. Indeed, this is how most people approach similar arguments in other contexts. In the name of privacy and civil liberties we impose limits on how the justice system polices and imprisons, and we may celebrate activists who try to curb that system’s manifest abuses. But we don’t (with, yes, some anarchist exceptions) believe that we should remove all legal protections for people’s property or lives.

That removal of protection would be unjust no matter what its consequences, but in reality we know that those consequences would include more crime, more violence and more death. And the anti-abortion side can give the same answer when it’s asked why we can’t be content with doing all the other things that may reduce abortion rates and leaving legal protection out of it: Because while legal restrictions aren’t sufficient to end abortion, there really are a lot of unborn human lives they might protect.

Consider that when the State of Texas put into effect this year a ban on most abortions after about six weeks, the state’s abortions immediately fell by half. I think the Texas law, which tries to evade the requirements of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey by using private lawsuits for enforcement, is vulnerable to obvious critiques and liable to be abused. It’s not a model I would ever cite for pro-life legislation.

But that immediate effect, that sharp drop in abortions, is why the pro-life movement makes legal protection its paramount goal.

According to researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, who surveyed the facilities that provide about 93 percent of all abortions in the state, there were 2,149 fewer legal abortions in Texas in the month the law went into effect than in the same month in 2020.

About half that number may end up still taking place, some estimates suggest, many of them in other states. But that still means that in a matter of months, more than a thousand human beings will exist as legal persons, rights-bearing Texans — despite still being helpless, unreasoning and utterly dependent — who would not have existed had this law not given them protection.

But, in fact, they exist already. They existed, at our mercy, all along.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram .

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author of several books, most recently, “The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery.” @ DouthatNYT • Facebook