Why 'Against Abortion? Don’t Have One!' Fails

Something that really irritates me is when people make weak arguments in favor of positions I actually agree with. It’s frustrating to see faulty reasoning used to defend views I hold. I feel secondhand embarrassment knowing that others who hear these arguments will recognize their flaws and conclude that supporters of the position are ignorant. Nowhere is this phenomenon more common than in the abortion debate. I take the pro-choice position myself, but I often hear pro-choice arguments that are particularly weak. Here, I’d like to address one of the worst pro-choice points I’ve encountered and explain why it fails.

There is a slogan that is presented by some pro-choicers that goes: “Against abortion? Don’t have one!” The implication is that while pro-lifers may oppose abortion in their own lives, they should not impose their views on others by restricting access to abortion. This argument frames abortion as a personal moral choice rather than an issue requiring legal intervention. In essence, it appeals to the "live and let live" principle, suggesting that people should follow their own ethical values without dictating others' choices.

In any debate, understanding the opposing position is crucial, even if you strongly disagree with it. The problem with “Against abortion? Don’t have one!” is that it fundamentally misunderstands the pro-life perspective. To illustrate why, let me introduce a key distinction between two types of moral disagreements: weak morality and strong morality.

Weak morality involves actions that some may find objectionable but do not directly harm others. An example is swearing. Some disapprove of it, while others use profanity freely. In cases of weak morality, society generally adheres to the "live and let live" principle: people may abide by their own values, but they cannot enforce them on others. If you don’t like swearing, you can choose not to swear, but you cannot demand that everyone else abstain.

Strong morality, on the other hand, involves actions that cause clear, direct harm to identifiable victims. Examples include theft, fraud, assault, and murder. These actions are not merely discouraged—they are prohibited by law. No one would accept the argument, "If you don’t like fraud, don’t commit it!" as a justification for permitting fraud. Society does not allow individuals to decide for themselves whether to engage in acts that inflict serious harm. A blanket statement to “not impose your morality on others” doesn’t make sense in this context. We impose morality on others all the time, and justifiably so. Laws exist precisely to enforce moral boundaries in such cases. *

Returning to the topic of abortion, this distinction between weak and strong morality highlights the flaw in the slogan 'Against abortion? Don’t have one!'. It assumes that abortion falls under the weak morality category—a matter of personal choice. As a pro-choicer, I agree that abortion should remain a personal decision. However, the problem with the slogan is that it disregards the pro-life perspective. Pro-lifers do not see abortion as merely a weakly immoral behavior like swearing; they see it as an act of strong immorality—akin to murder. From their standpoint, abortion harms an innocent person, and if that view is correct, then society should prohibit it just as it prohibits other harmful actions.

Of course, pro-choicers like myself do not accept that abortion is strongly immoral. But that is the very premise under contention. It is the core of what the abortion debate is about! The slogan “Against abortion? Don’t have one!” is ineffective because it assumes the conclusion rather than arguing for it. It sidesteps the debate entirely by failing to engage with the opposing position. To pro-lifers, this statement sounds as absurd as saying, “Against murder? Don’t commit it!” The entire debate hinges on whether abortion constitutes murder. Simply asserting that it does not is unconvincing to those who believe otherwise. It’s the equivalent of declaring, 'I’m right!' without further argument.

In conclusion, I believe pro-choicers need to argue more persuasively in the abortion debate. Saying, “Against abortion? Don’t have one!” completely misses the point of the debate. If we want to have a meaningful discussion, we must engage with the actual objections of the other side, not dismiss them with slogans. Understanding the opposing argument is the first step to making a compelling case for our own position.

*As a consequentialist, I don’t see the distinction between weak and strong morality as fundamental. Ultimately, actions have consequences, and their morality is determined by whether those consequences are good or bad. In the case of swearing, for example, one could argue that it erodes civility, escalates conflict, and encourages impulsive or aggressive behavior, even if subconsciously. If this is true, and if the benefits of swearing do not sufficiently outweigh these harms, then swearing is, at least in general, morally wrong. That said, I still find the weak vs. strong morality distinction useful. The key difference is that weakly immoral actions produce subtle, diffuse, and insidious harms, whereas strongly immoral actions lead to obvious, direct, and immediate harm. While this distinction does not determine an action’s moral status—since harm occurs either way—it does matter for how we regulate behavior. Because weakly immoral acts tend to be more context-dependent and open to interpretation, they are difficult to adjudicate in a legal setting. As a result, they are better addressed through social norms rather than outright legal bans.