abortion debate abortion debate the abortion debate is a longstanding, ongoing controversy that touches on the moral, legal, medical, and religious aspects of induced abortion. in english-speaking countries, the debate most visibly polarizes around adherents of the self-described "pro-choice" and "pro-life" movements. pro-choice emphasizes a woman's right to bodily autonomy, while the pro-life position argues that a fetus is a human deserving of legal protection, separate from the will of the mother. both terms are considered loaded in mainstream media, where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are generally preferred. each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position. many who take a position argue that abortion is essentially a moral issue, concerning the beginning of human personhood, rights of the fetus, and bodily integrity. the debate has become a political and legal issue in some countries with anti-abortion campaigners seeking to enact, maintain and expand anti-abortion laws, while abortion-rights campaigners seek to repeal or ease such laws and expand access to the procedure. abortion laws vary considerably between jurisdictions, ranging from outright prohibition of the procedure to public funding of abortion. the availability of safe abortion also varies across the world and exists mainly in places that legalize abortion. overview in ancient times, issues such as abortion and infanticide were evaluated within the contexts of family planning, gender selection, population control, and the property rights of the patriarch. rarely were the rights of the prospective mother, much less the prospective child, taken into consideration. then, as now, these discussions often concerned the nature of humankind, the existence of a soul, when life begins, and the beginning of human personhood. discussion of the putative personhood of the fetus may be complicated by the current legal status of children. like minors in the u.s. a fetus or an embryo is not legally a "person", not having reached the age of majority and not deemed able to enter into contracts and sue or be sued. since the 1860s, they have been treated as persons for the limited purposes of offence against the person law in the uk including n. ireland, although this treatment was amended by the abortion act of 1967 in england, scotland and wales. furthermore, there are logistic difficulties in treating a fetus as "the object of direct action". as one new jersey superior court judge noted, "if a fetus is a person, it is a person in very special circumstances – it exists entirely within the body of another much larger person and usually cannot be the object of direct action by another person." proposals in the current debate range from complete prohibition, even if the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life, to complete legalization with public funding. terminology many of the terms used in the debate are seen as political framing: terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. for example, the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty or the right to life, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life". terms used by some in the debate to describe their opponents include "pro-abortion" or "pro-abort". however, these terms do not always reflect a political view or fall along a binary; in one public religion research institute poll, seven in ten americans described themselves as "pro-choice" while almost two-thirds described themselves as "pro-life". another identifier in the debate is "abolitionist", which harks back to the 19th-century struggle against human slavery. appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question). the appropriate terms with which to designate the human organism prior to birth are also debated. the medical terms "embryo" and "fetus" are seen by some anti-abortion advocates as dehumanizing, while everyday terms such as "baby" or "child" are viewed as sentimental by some abortion rights advocates. the use of the term "baby" to describe the unborn human organism is seen by some scholars as part of an effort to assign the organism agency. this assignation of agency functions to further the construction of fetal personhood. anti-abortion activists occasionally use the term the "silent holocaust" in reference to the number of abortions that have been performed in the united states since 1973. political debate there is abundant debate regarding the extent of abortion regulation. some abortion rights advocates argue that it should be illegal for governments to regulate abortion any more than other medical practices. on both sides of the debate, some argue that governments should be permitted to prohibit elective abortions after the 20th week, viability, or the second trimester. some want to prohibit all abortions, starting from conception. privacy in the united states, the debate has been framed as an aspect of privacy. even though the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in many constitutions of sovereign nations, many people see it as foundational to a functioning democracy. in general the right to privacy can be found to rest on the provisions of habeas corpus, which first found official expression under henry ii in 11th century england, but has precedent in anglo-saxon law. this provision guarantees the right to freedom from arbitrary government interference, as well as due process of law. this conception of the right to privacy is operant in all countries which have adopted english common law through acts of reception. the law of the united states rests on english common law by this means. time has stated that the issue of bodily privacy is "the core" of the abortion debate. time defined privacy, in relation to abortion, as the ability of a woman to "decide what happens to her own body". in political terms, privacy can be understood as a condition in which one is not observed or disturbed by government. traditionally, american courts have located the right to privacy in the fourth amendment, ninth amendment, fourteenth amendment, as well as the penumbra of the bill of rights. the landmark decision roe v wade relied on the 14th amendment, which guarantees that federal rights shall be applied equally to all persons born in the united states. the 14th amendment has given rise to the doctrine of substantive due process, which is said to guarantee various privacy rights, including the right to bodily integrity. while governments are allowed to invade the privacy of their citizens in some cases, they are expected to protect privacy in all cases lacking a compelling state interest. in the us, the compelling state interest test has been developed in accordance with the standards of strict scrutiny. in roe v wade, the court decided that the state has an "important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life" from the point of viability on, but that prior to viability, the woman's fundamental rights are more compelling than that of the state. albert wynn and gloria feldt at the u.s. supreme court to rally in support of roe v. wade u.s. judicial involvement main article: abortion in the united states roe v. wade struck down state laws banning abortion in 1973. over 20 cases have addressed abortion law in the united states, all of which upheld roe v. wade. since roe, abortion has been legal throughout the country, but states have placed varying regulations on it, from requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion to restricting late-term abortions. legal criticisms of the roe decision address many points, among them are several suggesting that it is an overreach of judicial powers, or that it was not properly based on the constitution, or that it is an example of judicial activism and that it should be overturned so that abortion law can be decided by legislatures. justice potter stewart, who joined with the majority, viewed the roe opinion as "legislative" and asked that more consideration be paid to state legislatures. candidates competing for the democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election cited gonzales v. carhart as judicial activism. in upholding the partial-birth abortion ban act, carhart is the first judicial opinion upholding a legal barrier to a specific abortion procedure. where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in roe and those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. it is the dimension present whenever the court's interpretation of the constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the constitution ... hatever the premises of opposition may be, only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the court staked its authority in the first instance.— majority opinion of planned parenthood v. casey. quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish .— justice antonin scalia, "concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part". dobbs v. jackson overturned the roe decision on june 24, 2022. canadian judicial involvement supreme court of canada in ottawa with r v. morgentaler, a 5–2 majority of the supreme court of canada held that the abortion provisions of the criminal code were unconstitutional. the majority of the court held that the abortion provisions infringed the rights of pregnant women, contrary to the security of the person clause of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms, and could not be justified. the only laws currently governing abortion in canada are those which govern medical procedures in general, such as those regulating licensing of facilities, the training of medical personnel, and the like. laws also exist which are intended to prevent anti-abortion activists from interfering with staff and patient access to hospitals and clinics, for instance by creating buffer zones around them. because the courts did not establish abortion as a constitutional right, parliament continues to have jurisdiction to legislate with respect to abortion. the progressive conservative government of brian mulroney twice attempted to do. the first bill, introduced in 1988, was defeated in the house of commons. the next year, in 1989, the mulroney government introduced a bill that would allow abortion only if two doctors certified that the woman's health was in danger. this bill passed the house of commons but was defeated by a tie vote in the senate. there have not been any further government attempts to enact legislation relating to abortion in parliament since then. although the courts have not ruled on the question of fetal personhood, the question has been raised in two cases, tremblay v. daigle and r. v. sullivan. both cases relied on the born alive rule, inherited from english common law, to determine that the fetus was not a person at law. two further cases are notable: dobson (litigation guardian of) v. dobson, and winnipeg child & family services (northwest area) v. g . (d.f.), , which dismissed so-called fetal abuse charges. worldwide stances main article: abortion law countries that refuse abortions as of 2016, there are six countries that completely outlaw abortion: el salvador, malta, vatican city, the dominican republic, philippines, and nicaragua. this bans women from an abortion for any reason (underage, fetal impairment, rape/incest), even if it might mean saving her life. penalties include jail time. countries with strict laws the october 2020 polish protests were caused by severe changes to abortion laws. argentina allowed abortion only in case of rape or if the mother's health was at risk. in december 2020, the argentine senate passed a bill