如果合法化的堕胎被消除，那么法律将被用来迫使妇女怀孕到足月 – 用她们的身体提供一个胎儿可以发育成婴儿的地方。这是反选择活动家的理想选择，但这是道德的吗？不允许妇女选择怀孕和复制与自由民主国家的正义不相容。即使胎儿是一个人并且堕胎是不道德的，也不应该通过不道德的手段来预防胎儿。伦理和性活动的后果：怀孕几乎总是由于性活动而发生;因此，关于堕胎伦理的问题必须包括有关性别本身伦理的问题。有些人认为或至少似乎认为，性活动必须带来后果，其中一种可能是怀孕。因此，试图通过堕胎或避孕来预防这些后果是不道德的。然而，现代性自由往往侧重于将性行为从传统后果中解放出来。只有在与女性一样对胎儿存在负责的男性的参与下才能进行怀孕。妇女应该在决定怀孕是否到期时给予父亲任何发言权吗？如果男性在出生后有道德义务支持孩子，那么他们是否对孩子是否出生有道德主张？理想情况下，会咨询父亲，但不是每个关系都是理想的，男人不会像孕妇一样承受同样的身体风险。虽然反选择的积极分子喜欢炒作假设妇女堕胎以保持其职业生涯的例子，但女性因为感到无法正确照顾孩子而堕胎更为常见。即使强迫妇女将怀孕带到任期是道德的，强迫生育不受欢迎且无法照顾的儿童也是不道德的。选择在不能成为好母亲的情况下中止的女性正在向他们开放最合乎道德的选择。关于堕胎的道德辩论既有政治和宗教方面的影响。也许人们犯下的最重要的错误就是混淆两者，就好像在宗教方面的决定需要在政治方面作出特定的决定（反之亦然）。只要我们接受宗教领袖没有权威而宗教教义不能成为法律基础的世俗领域的存在，我们也必须接受民法可能与宗教信仰不一致。堕胎是一个难题 – 没有人轻易接近或决定是否轻微堕胎。堕胎还触及了许多重要的，基本的道德问题：人格的性质，权利的性质，人际关系，个人自治，国家对个人决策的权威程度等等。所有这一切都意味着我们认真对待堕胎作为一个道德问题是非常重要的 – 严重到足以识别各种组成部分并以尽可能小的偏见进行讨论。对于某些人来说，他们对道德问题的态度纯粹是世俗的;对于其他人来说，它将充分了解宗教价值观和学说。任何一种方法都没有任何固有的错误或优越性。然而，错误的是，想象宗教价值观应成为这些辩论的决定因素。然而，重要的宗教价值观可能是某人，他们不能成为适用于所有公民的法律的基础。如果人们公开地接受辩论并愿意以不同的观点向他人学习，那么每个人都可能对其他人产生积极的影响。这可能使辩论向前推进并取得进展。可能无法达成广泛的协议，但可能有可能实现合理的妥协。首先，我们需要了解问题所在。
If the legalized abortion is eliminated, the law will be used to force the woman to become pregnant to the full term – using their body to provide a place where the fetus can develop into a baby. This is the ideal choice for anti-selective activists, but is this moral? Women’s choice of pregnancy and reproduction is not allowed to be incompatible with justice in liberal democracies. Even if the fetus is a person and abortion is immoral, it should not be prevented by unethical means. Consequences of ethical and sexual activity: Pregnancy almost always occurs due to sexual activity; therefore, questions about abortion ethics must include questions about the ethics of gender itself. Some people think or at least seem to think that sexual activity must have consequences, one of which may be pregnancy. Therefore, it is unethical to try to prevent these consequences through abortion or contraception. However, modern sexual freedom tends to liberate sexual behavior from traditional consequences. Pregnancy can only be carried out with the participation of a male who is responsible for the fetus as a woman. Should women give their father any say in determining whether a pregnancy is due? If men have a moral obligation to support their children after birth, are they morally assertive about whether or not they are born? Ideally, the father will be consulted, but not every relationship is ideal, and men will not suffer the same physical risks as pregnant women. Although counter-selective activists like to speculate on the assumption that women have abortions to maintain their careers, abortion is more common because women feel unable to take care of their children properly. Even if it is moral to force a woman to bring her pregnancy to her office, it is immoral to force a child who is unpopular and unattainable. Women who choose to stop without being a good mother are opening the most ethical choices to them. The moral debate about abortion has both political and religious implications. Perhaps the most important mistake people make is to confuse the two, as if a religious decision requires a specific political decision (and vice versa). As long as we accept the existence of a secular field in which religious leaders have no authority and religious teachings cannot be the basis of law, we must also accept that civil law may be inconsistent with religious beliefs. Abortion is a problem – no one can easily approach or decide whether to have a slight abortion. Abortion also touches on many important, basic moral issues: the nature of personality, the nature of rights, interpersonal relationships, personal autonomy, the degree of authority of the state for individual decision-making, and so on. All of this means that it is very important that we take abortion seriously as a moral issue – serious enough to identify the various components and discuss them with as little prejudice as possible. For some people, their attitude towards moral issues is purely secular; for others, it will fully understand religious values and doctrines. There is no inherent error or superiority in either method. However, the mistake is that imagining religious values should be the determining factor in these debates. However, important religious values may be someone who cannot be the basis of the law that applies to all citizens. If people openly accept the debate and are willing to learn from others from different perspectives, then everyone can have a positive impact on others. This may move the debate forward and make progress. A broad agreement may not be reached, but it may be possible to achieve a reasonable compromise. First, we need to understand the problem.