Perhaps nothing divides Americans more vehemently today than views regarding the subject of abortion. Thus, instead of fuming group outbursts and slick slogans (bromidic and not supported rationally or in intellectual depth by either side of the issue) entrenched individual personal opinions (some valid, some not), and (worst of all) punitive laws, a strictly clinical review of the issue is well overdue. This means objective consideration is required by those who will contemplate the subject with a logical mind, a cool temperament, and the willingness to use pure reason based on facts of reality. 

Firstly, even though it is routinely being politicized let us be clear that abortion is not a political issue. It is a human rights issue.  In philosophical terms, we can turn to past relevant thinking surrounding this subject in the fundamentals of individual rights and property ownership. Above all thinkers of note who influenced the primary considerations of both individual rights and property rights for America’s Founding Framers when crafting the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, John Locke was undoubtedly the most important addressing these concerns, and self-property ownership was the fundamental premise upon which all his further precepts rested.  [Sidebar: The Declaration was originally written to protect “Life, Liberty, and Property” but “Property” was (reportedly) changed by Jefferson to “Pursuit of Happiness” in order to avoid the issue of slavery and also to include all citizens whether (at that time) property owners or not--“Pursuit of Happiness” was broader and applicable to all individuals regardless of status.]  Plus, considering today’s context regarding the desire of so many religionists attempting to influence political policies (including abortion), we need remember that Locke was himself a Christian who believed in a God, honored the Bible, and also accepted the idea of a secular monarchy yet still was able to compatibly respect all three while first and foremost advocating for protection of the property and other natural rights of every individual no matter their personal beliefs or station in life.

Individual and property rights–those rational and legally retained rights held by all American citizens as independent individuals and codified in the United States Constitution and those believed by some advocates also to be granted to an unborn fetus--are at the crux of today’s arguments; therefore, since property rights (beginning with ownership of one’s own body) are the cornerstone upholding all other concurrent individual rights, this subject will lay the groundwork for further examination. [Some more cogent thinkers have broached the subject of abortion from a property rights stance (beyond the shouts of “My body my choice.”), but to this writer’s knowledge nothing has been offered to support the position from a philosophical point of view or one that separates morality from legality, which would have to be a crucial element in any worthwhile argument.]

Following are only a few of Locke’s many property protection propositions as enumerated in his 1690’s “Second Treatise of Government,” emphasizes mine: [Although Locke along with others speak in the universal term “man” as was customary in the time they obviously meant individuals of both sexes.]

CHAPTER V: OF PROPERTY.

Sect. 25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation. . .

Sect. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body (sic) has any right to but himself. 

Sect. 44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour (sic) of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that, which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being,

And later in 1772 America, Samual Adams: “Among the natural right of the Colonists are these: First, a Right of the Colonists (i.e., existing individuals) to Life; Secondly, to Liberty; Thirdly; to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

1774, First Continental Congress: “. . .by the immutable laws of nature the inhabitants of the colonies of North America are entitled to life, liberty, and property.”

1775, Moses Mather: “. . .that man hath an absolute property is, and right of dominion over himself, his powers and faculties; with self love to stimulate, and reason to guide him, in the free use and exercise of them, independent of, and uncontrollable by any but him. . .”

1835, Francis Wayland:  “Thus a man has an entire right to use his own body as he will, provided he does not so use it to interfere with the rights of his neighbor.”

1850s, Frederick Douglas (former slave): “Every man is an original, natural, rightful, and absolute owner of his own body.” And to his former owner: “I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. God created both and made us separate beings. . . . Nature does not make your existence depend upon me or mine depend upon yours.”

Now, let’s stand back and approach the subject of human sovereignty over all our personal property coldly and objectively: If our bodies are in fact of physical reality (as they demonstrably are) our first and fundamental object of personal property, then every woman who like every man as cited above over three-hundred years of modern history by both religious and secular thinkers with widely varying contexts is understood to have ownership of her own body as her first and most fundamental object of property by nature of her existence as an individual human being. This would mean she can do whatever she pleases with her body—her property—at any time and place as long as she does not infringe upon the individual rights of her (in the words of Wayland) “neighbor,” i.e. any other independent human being with the same property rights inherent in them by their very physical-mental nature.  This axiom regarding the reality-based laws of nature goes all the way back to Aristotle’s biologically based philosophy.

So!  Every human being—man or woman—by nature of their individual existence as a fully developed and autonomous, self-governing adult human being has the right not only to nurture their body in the best way possible for its optimum health but also to abuse their body with drugs, alcohol, or physical harm, the latter including the right to terminate their own life—destroy their self-owned and properly self-valued property--if they so decided to do such. These all may be very contentious and emotional issues at this point in time, but they need to be addressed according to reality not according to religious tenets or personal belief systems. Aristotle also put forth a Law of Identity axiom:  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is or wish it was or want it to be.  We can perceive and identify reality but we cannot create or change it by beliefs, wishes, or wants. [Children have rights but while still under the care of their parents may not exercise those that require a mind mature enough to make rational decisions, e.g., drinking alcohol, using drugs, voting, driving a vehicle, etc.]

Terminating an unwanted pregnancy taking place inside her own body by removing any prenatal tissue, embryo, or fetus (the latter not labeled differently from embryo until the 9th week after conception or week-11 after a last menstrual period) must be a fundamental right a woman has as owner of her own body, her primary object of property.  This must be so because all of these three aforementioned organisms are reliant on her body for 100% protection, sustenance, and survival itself.  Of equal importance at these stages, none yet exhibit the characteristics that makes a human being human or remotely meet the definition of a human being because it is not yet developed enough to fulfill the definition of a Homo Sapien as a species. This physical fact is crucial to addressing and understanding the subject objectively. A fetus cannot even breathe while in the womb.  Its lungs are filled with fluid, and they don’t inflate or function until actual birth into the outside world when it is apart from the placenta and its umbilical cord tether to life support is severed.  Only then can its lungs function independently to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. 

Aristotle also validated the importance of Self-love—self-value--as a prerequisite for loving—valuing--others. So, with these thoughts in mind we must look at the reality of an embryo and/or a fetus from a physical-medical point of view because this is the only way to view it objectively according to its reality. A fetus's ability to survive outside the womb, known as fetal viability, typically begins around 23 to 24 weeks of gestation, though survival rates and outcomes improve significantly after 28 weeks. Advances in neonatal care have enabled some offspring born as early as 22 weeks to survive, but these cases are rare and come with high risks of complications.

Here’s a general breakdown:

22–23 weeks: Survival becomes possible but extremely challenging. Pre-mature human offspring born this early face significant health risks and long-term complications.

24–26 weeks: This period marks the beginning of what’s considered viable by The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in strict medical terms.

28–32 weeks: The chances of survival increase significantly, with lower risks of long-term complications, as the lungs and other organs are more developed.

By these numbers we can conclude even on the generous side that basic human physical development and life outside the womb before 22 weeks is not possible--that’s five+ months--therefore, removing prenatal tissue, embryo, or undeveloped fetus is not in any physical regard terminating the life of a human being. Furthermore, a fetus does not even attain completion of all major human physical features until around 20 weeks.

And here is where it is crucial to separate morality and legality. 

A moral case might be made that if a pregnant woman cannot decide by five months into a pregnancy if she wants to give birth or not then she should not abort after that time period because the fetus has finally by then developed all of the attributes of a human being and can possibly live independently on it its own outside the womb.  The fact that it cannot breathe and survive on its own as even a potentially-developed human being before that time immediately negates all claims like “Life begins at conception.” This argument made against abortion is nothing beyond absurd. It’s like saying a fertilized hen’s egg is a chicken.  Of course, a human female’s fertilized egg is biologically alive as a single-celled organism, and just like a hen’s fertilized egg it contains the genetic material of a potential being, but it is not remotely a developed entity of any distinction whatsoever let alone a human being; when we eat a hen’s egg for breakfast, we are not ingesting a chicken!  And arguments like “Humanity begins when the fetal brain begins electrical and/or chemical activity” and “Humanity begins with a heartbeat” are just as emotionally-driven inane and rationally unsupportable according to physical laws of nature--Reality.  Furthermore, these types of declarations made into law by a bunch of politicians (or now fixated voters for constitutional change) absolutely and directly violate the property rights of any woman denied an abortion certainly before the five-month time period, and states (and amended constitutions) that now legislate very short windows for the procedure or ban it entirely are indeed lawless and in further fact inhumane.

To force any female to endure physical sickness, pain, discomfort, and distortion of her own body against her will by carrying and nourishing an unwanted organism in her belly for up to 9 months only then to go through the trauma of giving birth to an unwanted offspring and face either giving it up for adoption or keeping it to support as a responsibility for at least 18 years is cruel and beyond the pale of rational understanding. The psychological damage to a woman having to withstand something unwanted grow in her belly is also severe.  A woman who looks forward to the birth of a desired child as a new member of her family endures the pains and perils of pregnancy with that happy end in mind, but a woman who does not want a child only suffers both physically and mentally for nearly a year of her one-and-only life and perhaps (psychologically) forever during that one-and-only life if forced to carry to term. And not insignificantly, one must also note:  Aside from defaming individual rights and property rights, whatever happens to a woman’s right to her guaranteed “pursuit of happiness” by forcing not only pregnancy but the birth of an unwanted child upon her?

As of the 2024 election outcomes, 14 states have implemented, for all practical purposes, total abortion bans. [These laws typically allow exceptions only in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnant female’s life is at risk, but these cases are rare, exceptional, and not relevant to our subject.] Additionally, several states impose utterly impracticable restrictions like 6-week bans, a time frame before many women (and girls) even realize they are pregnant. Another group of states enforces limits after 12, 15, or 18 weeks of pregnancy, so at present we have a variety of regulations across the country​. [For detailed information on specific state laws, consult the Center for Reproductive Rights  for updated breakdowns.]  All of these restrictions are a vicious use of the law to deny women sovereignty over their own bodies.  Aside from gross misrule, laws with short-term windows or outright bans force women who insist on an abortion to travel to another state for the procedure--something some cannot afford time or money to do-- so this burdens the poor more than anyone else, a class that the same legislators and voters usually clamor to want to help.

Ergo!  Having addressed the morality issue, we now address the legality issue.  No matter what one personally thinks, believes, or wishes, there is no doubt that Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional as is every other law that dictates or interferes in any way with personal matters.  The US constitution says nothing about private values and behavior. Eons ago, there were laws forbidding interracial marriage and contraceptives that rightly had to be rescinded because they violated individual rights, and all such mandates that meddle in personal moral matters at any time and place are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s sending the abortion issue back to the states was a correct move because (as cited) that federal law and every other that deals with personal and private matters is unconstitutional, but now many states are violating women’s rights by restricting their fundamental property right to their own bodies.  Both morally and legally, the decision to bear a child or abort an unwanted pregnancy should rest solely with the pregnant woman and her doctor.  To be strictly consistent with that right to personal choice (although as posited morally questionable), an abortion decision should legally be respected as long as it is performed before the actual birth of an individuated human being who has entered the world as an alive, breathing-on-its-own individual with all of the rights guaranteed to it by its independent survival.

An unborn fetus cannot have legal rights because to claim that it does requires robbing a pregnant woman of hers.  This is the fact too often ignored. 

Abortion for many is a religious issue, but no personal God or holy book should be allowed to dictate every woman’s right to the ownership and use of her own body.  Religious believers, of course, have the right to follow the tenets of their chosen creed, but they have no right to force others to behave accordingly. Some religious devotees gather outside clinics, pray, and try to convince pregnant women via pleas and/or pamphlets to carry to term and give birth, and that violates no one’s rights so is perfectly permissible both morally and legally because no force is involved

In the end, it is essential to respect the physical facts of biological reality and separate morality (a personal code) from legality (a societal code).  Individual rights and protection of property ownership are necessary for humans to flourish in any societal setting, and government’s only proper role is to ensure those rights.  If a government does not respect that fact of reality, then it is a rogue government acting wrongly and far outside its legislative purview.  But all men and all woman are born free according to the laws of nature and have a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as long as they do not infringe on the rights of any other.  But in order to claim those rights, they first must be born into the world as a separate entity—a human being--and independently able to survive on their own as a distinct individual able to breathe and move about in the real world, which then puts them on an equal footing with all others who properly enjoy those same rights.