Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 87–94 | Cite as

Why Governments That Fund Elective Abortion Are Obligated to Attempt a Reduction in the Elective Abortion Rate

Original Research


If elective abortion is publicly funded, then the government is obligated to take active measures designed to reduce its prevalence. I present two arguments for that conclusion. The first argument is directed at those pro-choice thinkers who hold that while some or all elective abortions are morally wrong, they still ought to be legally permitted and publicly subsidized. The second argument is directed at pro-choice thinkers who hold that there is nothing morally wrong with elective abortion and that it should be both legally permitted and publicly subsidized. The second argument employs premises that generalize beyond the abortion debate and that may serve to shed light on broader questions concerning conscience and the requirements of political compromise in a democracy.


Abortion Taxation Policy Conscience Funding Pro-choice 


  1. Bellamy, R. 1999. Liberalism and pluralism: Towards a politics of compromise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bird, C. 1996. Mutual respect and neutral justification. Ethics 107(1): 62–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dobel, P. 1990. Compromise and political action: Political morality in liberal and democratic life. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Kaposy, C. 2009. The public funding of abortion in Canada: Going beyond the concept of medical necessity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12(3): 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kennedy, M. 2012. New poll show most Canadians support abortion—with some restrictions. National Post, July 4.
  6. Sher, G. 1981. Subsidized abortion: Moral rights and moral compromise. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10(4): 361–372.Google Scholar
  7. Gutman, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. MacQueen, K., and M. Patriquin. 2011. Are we ready to subsidize heroin? Maclean’s, October 7.
  9. May, S.C. 2005. Principled compromise and the abortion controversy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 33(4): 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyConcordia University of EdmontonEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations