What will be the status of Abortion in the year 2115?

[RINO Tom]

Great question, and brilliant, well-thought out alternative scenarios.

2115 is a long way away.

I think one major factor will be the role of Islam in the West. Abortion does not seem to me to be a "signature" issue in Islam, as it is in the Roman Catholic Church and among Evangelicals. Still, especially considering the evolving relationship between Western feminism and Islam, it is difficult to predict how Islam will tilt the discussion / legal status of abortion.

Leaving the role of Islam aside, certain predictions can be made.

1. Even people who are personally pro-life will be less and less supportive of laws that prohibit abortion or make its access difficult.

2. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers will still be a thing, existing alongside groups such as Planned Parenthood. Sadly, and to the detriment of women and children, these two groups will still see each other as enemies, rather than allies in the fight against unwanted pregnancy and for dignity of pregnant women and new mothers, and their children.

3. Legal opposition to abortion will be pretty much confined to conservative, practicing Catholics and (white) Evangelicals.

4. It will be legal, and about as prevalent as today (though the declining number of abortion practitioners will make access difficult for many women, particularly rural and poor women), and will be a less discussed issue. As of June 2017, I believe both sides have pretty much played themselves out.

A comparison was made between the abortion and slavery. I believe abortion will be more like the drinking issue: such a major issue 100 years ago, hardly a blip now.

I really hope you're right; I was just making the point that you can take historical politics and spin the narrative in any way you want.  Hard not to see some continuity between a hypothetical Democratic criticism of either position in both eras, which is exactly how the first militant pro-life voters saw it.

[Person Man]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

Was it always that the Republicans were the pro-life and the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I know that by 1984, that was the case.

Nixon, Ford, and H. W. were all at one time or another pro-choice.

W and Trump were, too.

[Person Man]

Great question, and brilliant, well-thought out alternative scenarios.

2115 is a long way away.

I think one major factor will be the role of Islam in the West. Abortion does not seem to me to be a "signature" issue in Islam, as it is in the Roman Catholic Church and among Evangelicals. Still, especially considering the evolving relationship between Western feminism and Islam, it is difficult to predict how Islam will tilt the discussion / legal status of abortion.

Leaving the role of Islam aside, certain predictions can be made.

1. Even people who are personally pro-life will be less and less supportive of laws that prohibit abortion or make its access difficult.

2. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers will still be a thing, existing alongside groups such as Planned Parenthood. Sadly, and to the detriment of women and children, these two groups will still see each other as enemies, rather than allies in the fight against unwanted pregnancy and for dignity of pregnant women and new mothers, and their children.

3. Legal opposition to abortion will be pretty much confined to conservative, practicing Catholics and (white) Evangelicals.

4. It will be legal, and about as prevalent as today (though the declining number of abortion practitioners will make access difficult for many women, particularly rural and poor women), and will be a less discussed issue. As of June 2017, I believe both sides have pretty much played themselves out.

A comparison was made between the abortion and slavery. I believe abortion will be more like the drinking issue: such a major issue 100 years ago, hardly a blip now.

I really hope you're right; I was just making the point that you can take historical politics and spin the narrative in any way you want.  Hard not to see some continuity between a hypothetical Democratic criticism of either position in both eras, which is exactly how the first militant pro-life voters saw it.

So abortion will either
1) Still a the cluster4uck it is today.
2) An issue like slavery, where, probably through a major disaster, the fetus's right to not be aborted becomes one of the cornerstones of Western Law and Ethics.
3) Like the last long failed war on Drugs in the 20s, where people use it as a case study of why freedom works and Government regulation fails and just causes more suffering.   

[RINO Tom]

Great question, and brilliant, well-thought out alternative scenarios.

2115 is a long way away.

I think one major factor will be the role of Islam in the West. Abortion does not seem to me to be a "signature" issue in Islam, as it is in the Roman Catholic Church and among Evangelicals. Still, especially considering the evolving relationship between Western feminism and Islam, it is difficult to predict how Islam will tilt the discussion / legal status of abortion.

Leaving the role of Islam aside, certain predictions can be made.

1. Even people who are personally pro-life will be less and less supportive of laws that prohibit abortion or make its access difficult.

2. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers will still be a thing, existing alongside groups such as Planned Parenthood. Sadly, and to the detriment of women and children, these two groups will still see each other as enemies, rather than allies in the fight against unwanted pregnancy and for dignity of pregnant women and new mothers, and their children.

3. Legal opposition to abortion will be pretty much confined to conservative, practicing Catholics and (white) Evangelicals.

4. It will be legal, and about as prevalent as today (though the declining number of abortion practitioners will make access difficult for many women, particularly rural and poor women), and will be a less discussed issue. As of June 2017, I believe both sides have pretty much played themselves out.

A comparison was made between the abortion and slavery. I believe abortion will be more like the drinking issue: such a major issue 100 years ago, hardly a blip now.

I really hope you're right; I was just making the point that you can take historical politics and spin the narrative in any way you want.  Hard not to see some continuity between a hypothetical Democratic criticism of either position in both eras, which is exactly how the first militant pro-life voters saw it.

So abortion will either
1) Still a the cluster4uck it is today.
2) An issue like slavery, where, probably through a major disaster, the fetus's right to not be aborted becomes one of the cornerstones of Western Law and Ethics.
3) Like the last long failed war on Drugs in the 20s, where people use it as a case study of why freedom works and Government regulation fails and just causes more suffering.   

Pretty much!  I tend to think #3 is most likely (I'm biased), but I don't think enough pro-choice people are willing to entertain the similarities militant pro-lifers (possibly correctly??) can draw for #2.  Abolition, at its foundation, had deeply religious and moralist drivers.

[SingingAnalyst]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Historically, political party identification and abortion views have often been correlated, but not in a way that Americans younger than 40 would recognize.

The first Protestant denominations to make a push in a pro-choice direction were also the most Republican at the time: Presbyterian and Episcopal. The Catholics and Southern Baptists, both strongly Democratic constituencies at that time, remained stauchly opposed to abortion. The Black Panther Party opposed birth control through the early 1970s, so one can only speculate their views on abortion. Jesse Jackson was pro-life at least until 1977, the year he wrote a position paper for the National Right to Life Committee.

Closer to (my) home, here in MI the (initially unsuccessful) push to legalize abortion in the early 1970s was led by Protestant Republicans in the state legislature; the largely Catholic Democratic legislators were opposed. An unsuccessful 1972 initiative in MI to legalize abortion through 20 weeks received just 40% of the vote in heavily Democratic Wayne County-- and 51% in (then) heavily Republican Oakland County. The 1978 gubernatorial elections in both MA and MI featured a pro-life Democrat against a pro-choice Republican.

Nationally, the transition took place in the 1970s; I believe 1976 is the first year the party platforms took the positions on abortion (Dems pro-choice; GOP pro-life) that characterize the parties today.

So, the answer to your initial question is: No.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

Was it always that the Republicans were the pro-life and the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I know that by 1984, that was the case.

Nixon, Ford, and H. W. were all at one time or another pro-choice.

W and Trump were, too.

Trump, yes, but W has been pro-life throughout his whole public life.

[Person Man]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

Was it always that the Republicans were the pro-life and the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I know that by 1984, that was the case.

Nixon, Ford, and H. W. were all at one time or another pro-choice.

W and Trump were, too.

Trump, yes, but W has been pro-life throughout his whole public life.

Didn't he run for Congress in Texas when he stated something to the affect that abortion was a personal matter or at least he didn't care about it. It's my understanding that about a quarter of GOP voters "don't care" about abortion.. or really in both parties...

[SoLongAtlas]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

[SingingAnalyst]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

"One" is the loneliest number, in addition to being an odd number. Two, maybe.

I would hope the status of girls and women worldwide improves before more countries seriously contemplate one- (or two-) child policies. We all know about how after China intorduced its one-child policy in 1979, the male-female ratio especially in rural areas became very skewed, in "favor" of males.

Perhaps we will find a way to reconcile personal/religious views against abortion (and in favor of life); privacy and free choice and accessibilty for women facing problem pregnancies; and perhaps a small need for regulation, as long as it is needed, to discourage or prevent sex-selection abortions (in addition to normal medical regulations on the procedure, which should not be seen as overly restrictive or as a backdoor attempt to roll back abortion rights).

[Person Man]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

That seems like a logical prediction of how things will be 100 years from now, but there have been so many curve balls thrown between even 1965 and 2015...or even 1995 and 2015.

[SoLongAtlas]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

"One" is the loneliest number, in addition to being an odd number. Two, maybe.

I would hope the status of girls and women worldwide improves before more countries seriously contemplate one- (or two-) child policies. We all know about how after China intorduced its one-child policy in 1979, the male-female ratio especially in rural areas became very skewed, in "favor" of males.

Perhaps we will find a way to reconcile personal/religious views against abortion (and in favor of life); privacy and free choice and accessibility for women facing problem pregnancies; and perhaps a small need for regulation, as long as it is needed, to discourage or prevent sex-selection abortions (in addition to normal medical regulations on the procedure, which should not be seen as overly restrictive or as a backdoor attempt to roll back abortion rights).

I typed one instead of two because the impetus will be on population reduction although I am aware of the Chinese male-female ratio problem. I don't think in 2115 religious beliefs on procedures will have much standing or for that matter the ability to deny an operation, esp in western and 1st world nations, it will be more of a problem in Islamic as well as under and undeveloped nations.

[Person Man]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

"One" is the loneliest number, in addition to being an odd number. Two, maybe.

I would hope the status of girls and women worldwide improves before more countries seriously contemplate one- (or two-) child policies. We all know about how after China intorduced its one-child policy in 1979, the male-female ratio especially in rural areas became very skewed, in "favor" of males.

Perhaps we will find a way to reconcile personal/religious views against abortion (and in favor of life); privacy and free choice and accessibility for women facing problem pregnancies; and perhaps a small need for regulation, as long as it is needed, to discourage or prevent sex-selection abortions (in addition to normal medical regulations on the procedure, which should not be seen as overly restrictive or as a backdoor attempt to roll back abortion rights).

I typed one instead of two because the impetus will be on population reduction although I am aware of the Chinese male-female ratio problem. I don't think in 2115 religious beliefs on procedures will have much standing or for that matter the ability to deny an operation, esp in western and 1st world nations, it will be more of a problem in Islamic as well as under and undeveloped nations.

Latin America will be interedting.

[RINO Tom]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

That seems like a logical prediction of how things will be 100 years from now, but there have been so many curve balls thrown between even 1965 and 2015...or even 1995 and 2015.

Why?  I mean, I hope that abortion becomes safe, legal and rare pretty much everywhere, but there isn't a lot of evidence that public opinion has moved decidedly in a pro-choice trend (quite the opposite over the last 30 years), and this view of the future being echoed by so many hinges upon the assumption that people won't look back on abortion as something people "started to realize was morally wrong but took time to become outlawed" ala slavery.  I don't THINK that's going to happen, but the fact that people can't entertain that turn of events, given history, is kind of baffling.

[Person Man]

Legal, not a political issue, both parties are ok with it, actually favored due to massive planetary overpopulation, growing tech/holo-introverted societies, and dwindling resources. Additionally, you start to see countries contemplate and actually pass laws in favor of one-child policies again.

That seems like a logical prediction of how things will be 100 years from now, but there have been so many curve balls thrown between even 1965 and 2015...or even 1995 and 2015.

Why?  I mean, I hope that abortion becomes safe, legal and rare pretty much everywhere, but there isn't a lot of evidence that public opinion has moved decidedly in a pro-choice trend (quite the opposite over the last 30 years), and this view of the future being echoed by so many hinges upon the assumption that people won't look back on abortion as something people "started to realize was morally wrong but took time to become outlawed" ala slavery.  I don't THINK that's going to happen, but the fact that people can't entertain that turn of events, given history, is kind of baffling.

I don't really think its really moved in the direction of abortion being illegal. We won't really know  much until if and when Roe is disregarded.

[Medal506]

Both abortion and same sex marriage will be gone within 20 years

[Virginiá]

Both abortion and same sex marriage will be gone within 20 years

How? It would take a constitutional amendment to roll those back, unless you think Supreme Court justices are going to do it for you, and that is hardly guaranteed with more conservatives on there. Justices are not always keen on flip-flopping like that. I suppose if you think Republicans are just going to keep winning every presidential election from here on out (because why not, it's not like their current incumbent has approval ratings in the high 30s and is under investigation by the FBI), then maybe it's possible.

Further, social change usually doesn't move backwards. Abortion is a unique and polarizing issue, but gay marriage is rapidly becoming more and more accepted by most of America. The people still fighting it are increasingly becoming a fringe group, and they will find little support among Millennials and future generations. I think the issue of gay marriage will likely die out with the boomers and silents.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I've thought a bit about the future of abortion. he interesting thing about abortion is that it is essentially a bioethics issue (though wrapped in a lot of political and religious imagery). Instead of going completely in one direction or another, it will likely become part of a constellation of contentious bioethics issues, such as (but not limited to) "designer babies," novel medical treatments, and artificial life.

[Person Man]

I've thought a bit about the future of abortion. he interesting thing about abortion is that it is essentially a bioethics issue (though wrapped in a lot of political and religious imagery). Instead of going completely in one direction or another, it will likely become part of a constellation of contentious bioethics issues, such as (but not limited to) "designer babies," novel medical treatments, and artificial life.

This, or emerging biological drugs such as Gene Editing and Therapeutically cloned grafts will become part of the "abortion issue" as have Birth Control funding and IUDs have.

[Cynthia]

Attached is my first draft paper on abortion, I see no way it being completely gone in 2115, as abortion is highly correlated with religious status, and an increasingly pro-choice demographic.

Decoding Abortion: How Abortion went from an Unknown Medical Procedure to No. 1 Social Issue in America
   Abortion is the medical procedure of the termination of pregnancy after the elimination of the fetus. Because of the procedure’s nature, it is one of the most heated topics up for debate nationally in the United States. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2016 indicates that 98% of Americans have an opinion in the abortion debate (Mitchell, 2017); a CNN/ORC survey conducted in 2015 also concurs the percentage by indicating only 1% of Americans have no opinion on the abortion debate (Agiesta, 2015). However, since the complexity of the abortion debate is extensive and have multitudes of impacts socially, politically, and religiously, for that abortion has been viewed as one of the pressing issues concerning the “religious freedom” (American center of law and justice, 2016) of some faith-based and/or conservative groups. In left-leaning/liberal groups, the fundamental right of abortion is deeply entrenched in the organizations’ manifestos and platforms (Dorf, 2016). In this paper, the origins of abortion, the history of abortion as a medical procedure, the process of legalizing abortion procedures, and the debate surrounding abortion as a social issue are discussed in an expository manner.
   The origin of abortion is not clear, but some has described the process as “as old as pregnancy” (Klabusich, 2016) “A range of oils, herbs and liquids such as wine, seawater and vinegar have been described in early writings to […] induce abortion” (Wright, 2010). Most primitive abortion methods are nonsurgical, such as climbing, weightlifting, contacting heated metal rods, stepping onto viper, and others. Fossil records indicate early surgical processes conducting abortions, but such records are not available in a wide-spreading capacity (Department of Classics, 1999). Later, some plants and natural products were found to have the ability to induce abortion, including the famous pennyroyal teas (Riddle, 1992, p.47).
   In the 19th century, after tremendous progress in surgical processes, abortions were then conducted by surgeons on a wide scale, while medical abortions are used concurrently. However, as abortion technology prospers, legal restrictions came with it. In 1803, a English statute abolished the previously-legal first trimester abortions. The act “condemned the willful, malicious, and unlawful use of any medical substance when used with the intent to induce abortion” (Stern, 1968). In 1821, Connecticut enabled the first statute in the United States regulating abortions. Within 10 years, states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, Alabama, and others enabled abortion restriction statutes, and by 1968, 50 of the 51 jurisdictions in the United States have prohibited abortion except in the case women’s life is endangered (Ibid., at 3). In 1965, Britain, however, legalized abortion for “medical conditions of the mother, for socio-economic reasons, for eugenic considerations, and for pregnancies which resulted from rape or incestuous intercourse”, which is still law today (Ibid, at 4). In Canada, abortion has been legalized since 1969 through Bill C-150 if “a committee of three physicians determined that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's life or health” (Norman, 2012). In 1988, Canadian Supreme Court struck down bill C-150’s provision requiring committee approval to receive an abortion in its decision in R v Morgentaler, legalizing abortion across Canada for any reasons (Ibid.). American lawmakers, however, did not consider making abortion legal nationwide. Nevertheless, some state legislatures enabled statutes permitting abortion under different circumstances, sometimes after referendums, as is the case in the state of Washington. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that a Texas law criminalizing abortion would violate the right of privacy, and is therefore unconstitutional (Oyez, n.d.). The decision legalized abortion in the United States nationwide, striking down the 47 remaining laws criminalizing abortion. However, unlike most other countries who concluded the abortion debate after corresponding legislations and/or court cases, Americans still struggle to obtain safe and legal access to abortion. Many states, mostly Republican-leaning states, enabled bills requiring parental/spousal notification (struck down in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1993), hospital admitting privilege and ambulatory surgical center certifications (struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016), as well as safety, location, funding requirements, making abortion difficult to access. In Mississippi, for example, only one location in the state is legally permitted to perform an abortion, down from five ten years ago. Additionally, many candidates, especially Republican candidates, running for offices would make abortion a central part of their platform, promising to act on the abortion issue. For instance, when Republican pro-life Senator Roy Blunt was unexpectedly campaigning in a tight race in the heavily conservative state of Missouri, various pro-life organizations flocked to Missouri to air advertisements or publish opinion articles to promote Blunt’s views (Musgrave, 2016). Likewise, when Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson was campaigning for his reelection, his pro-life views were challenged by several Democratic and pro-choice organizations (Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 2016).
   The abortion debate, although mostly calm and settled in other countries, such as the case of Canada (Ling, 2017). In Canada, Conservative party leader Andrew Scheer pledged to refuse to reopen the abortion debate despite being an ardent social conservative himself. In the United Kingdom, abortion does not appear anywhere on the two major parties’ manifestos, with the same scenario in France, Germany, Spain, and almost all developed countries except the United States. As stated previously, 98% of the American general populous has an opinion on the abortion issue (Mitchell, 2017). The majority of arguments in the United States, unsurprisingly, come from religious oppositions. 53% of Americans identify religion as a "very important aspect” of their lives, down from 58% in 2007 but still astoundingly high among industrialized countries (Wormald, 2015). The most widely utilized argument against abortion would state that the process of abortion would deprive the fetus of the right to life under the assumption that “a human foetus is a human life” and human fetuses has “intrinsic value” (Pollock, 2007), and destroying valuable subjects require justification. While religion is not directly mentioned in this argument, its essence is conveyed through religious expressions. The assumption that a human fetus is a human object in the Western perspective largely comes from the Bible, which states “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7, The New International Version). This became the foundation of Christian arguments against abortion, and is the most widely used argument in the abortion debates. However, other rationalizations have shed light on the issue as well. In 1989, Don Marquis published his famous essay “Why Abortion is Immoral” on the Journal of Philosophy, arguing that abortion morally deprives the fetus’s potential future, and the value of life the fetus may enjoy were it not be aborted, resulting in significant mental stress for the mother. (Marquis, 1989, 190). Marquis’s argument was said to be the “best secular argument” (Strong, 2008) against abortion, and no other argument was convincing enough to crack it. However, Strong argues in his 2008 paper that the essential argument Marquis puts is unacceptable because emotional analysis shows that receiving an abortion does not result in significant mental distress for the mother, especially if the abortion were to be out of the mot                                                                                      her’s health reasons. Therefore, Marquis’s central argument would be invalid. Jack Mulder also rebukes both Marquis’s argument and proposed a pro-choice talking point that women’s health trumps “moral superiority” as proposed by Marquis. Mulder argues that “cortical brain activity”, necessary for consciousness, only develops “around 25–32 weeks after fertilization”, therefore making it ineligible to claim that a fetus could be called a person. From a woman’s perspective, Mulder states “even if a fetus counted as a person, the fetus's rights would not extend to the right to draw sustenance and protection from the pregnant woman” (Mulder, 2013). As a result of these prior philosophical researches, although we can conclude with reasonable certainty that pro-choice arguments are generally stronger than pro-life arguments, personal bias would be difficult to overcome. A pro-choice person would argue in favor of pro-choice positions and vice versa.
   As expository writers, our objective is to present the facts in a manner as fact-driven and neutral as possible. It is difficult to not inject personal opinions, but personal opinions should be avoided as much as possible. Hopefully, this paper accomplished these objectives, positioning as close to the truth as possible.

[Cynthia]

Works Cited

Agiesta, J. (2015, September 14). CNN/ORC Poll: Views on guns, immigration, abortion. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/cnn-poll-guns-immigration-abortion-2016/
American center for law and justice; ACLJ calls supreme court action on abortion mandate "significant victory for religious freedom". (2016). Politics & Government Business, , 10. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1791393315?accountid=14656
Department of Classics. (1999). Abortion. Retrieved June 02, 2017, from https://web.archive.org/web/20070629085332/http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Abortion.html
Dorf, M. C. (2016, May 13). Make no mistake, abortion is a fundamental right. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-roe-wade-fundamental-right-412908
Ling, J. (2017, May 29). Andrew Scheer will oppose transgender rights, fight gun regulations, fund homeschooling. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from https://news.vice.com/story/andrew-scheer-will-oppose-transgender-rights-fight-gun-regulations-fund-homeschooling
Klabusich, K. (2016, January 22). Abortion Is as Old as Pregnancy: 4,000 Years of Reproductive Rights History. Retrieved June 02, 2017, from http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34529-abortion-is-as-old-as-pregnancy-4-000-years-of-reproductive-rights-history
Norman, W. (2012). Induced abortion in canada 1974-2005: Trends over the first generation with legal access. Contraception, 85(2), 185-191. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.06.009
Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202. doi:10.2307/2026961
Mitchell, T. (2017, January 11). Public Opinion on Abortion. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/#
Mulder, J. (2013). a short argument against abortion rights. Think, 12(34), 57-68. doi:10.1017/S1477175613000080
Musgrave, M. (2016, November 04). Missouri: A 2016 Pro-Life Battleground We Must Win. Retrieved June 04, 2017, from http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/01/missouri-a-2016-pro-life-battleground-we-must-win/
Planned Parenthood Action Fund. (2016). Ron Johnson. Retrieved June 04, 2017, from https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/senate/ron-johnson
Pollock, W. J. (2007). an argument against abortion on demand. Ratio, 20(1), 71-74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.2007.00347.x
Riddle, J. M., & ACLS Humanities E-Book. (1992). Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the renaissance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Roe v. Wade. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved June 2, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18
Stern, L. G. (1968). Abortion: Reform and the law. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59(1), 84-95.
Strong, C. (2008). A critique of "the best secular argument against abortion". Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(10), 727-731. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.024646
Whole Woman’s Health, et al. v. John Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, et al., No. 579 slip op. at ___ (June 27, 2016).
Wright, J. (2010). A history of contraception. British Journal of School Nursing, 5(7), 356-357. doi:10.12968/bjsn.2010.5.7.78291
Wormald, B. (2015, November 02). U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious. Retrieved June 08, 2017, from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/