The abortion debate in America has long been framed as a moral clash over when life begins. Pro-life advocates frequently invoke phrases like “abortion is murder” and position themselves as defenders of the unborn. But new research suggests these stated motivations might not tell the complete story.
A study published yesterday in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science reveals that opposition to abortion may be driven partly by desires to discourage casual sexual behavior, not solely by concerns about the sanctity of life.
Researchers from Brunel University London and the University of California, Los Angeles conducted three experiments involving 1,960 American participants to test what truly drives anti-abortion attitudes. Their findings challenge conventional understanding of the pro-life position.
“Previous research has sometimes assumed that pro-life attitudes are sincerely driven by beliefs about when life begins or about sanctity-of-life concerns,” said Dr. Jordan Moon, a social psychologist and lecturer from Brunel University London. “But people often care deeply about the behaviour of those around them. In particular, some people believe that loose sexual norms are damaging to society. People who associate abortion rights with loose norms might thus dislike abortion.”
In the experiments, participants were randomly shown different bills that would reduce abortions through various approaches. Each bill was described as preventing the exact same number of abortions and costing taxpayers the same amount of money. The only difference was how the bills would achieve their goals.
One bill proposed punishing women seeking abortions with fines and possible jail time. Another focused on comprehensive sex education with information about birth control. A third promoted abstinence-only sex education to discourage sex before marriage.
If participants were motivated solely by saving unborn lives—as the “face-value” account suggests—they should have supported all bills equally. But that’s not what happened.
Instead, the strongest abortion opponents showed clear preferences. They favored bills that would either punish women seeking abortions or promote abstinence-only education, while giving significantly less support to comprehensive sex education—despite all bills supposedly saving the same number of lives.
This pattern persisted even when researchers controlled for religiosity, social conservatism, and economic conservatism, suggesting these preferences weren’t simply due to religious or broadly conservative views.
“On balance, the data from our experiments lend greater support to the strategic account,” said Dr. Moon. “Indeed, our findings present some challenges to the face-value account. People who say abortion is murder don’t seem to equally support all possible policies that would reduce abortions. Rather, it seems that they prefer policies that prevent abortions specifically in ways that discourage casual sex.”
The researchers are careful to note that this doesn’t mean pro-life individuals are being deliberately deceptive. Most people aren’t fully aware of all the psychological factors driving their opinions.
“The strategic account doesn’t imply that pro-life individuals are being disingenuous,” Dr. Moon explained. “When they say that abortion is murder, they aren’t lying about what they believe.”
When asked explicitly, participants confirmed that they viewed the punishment and abstinence-only bills as more likely to decrease casual sex compared to the comprehensive sex education approach.
Dr. Jaimie Arona Krems, an associate professor of psychology at UCLA and co-author of the study, emphasized that these findings don’t suggest that concerns about casual sex are the only driver of anti-abortion attitudes. Even the strongest abortion opponents in the study reported at least moderate support for comprehensive sex education.
“Abortion attitudes likely depend on a wide range of influences,” said Dr. Krems, “and abortion opponents are not unique in making moral arguments that may be, deep down, self-interested. Rather, our findings simply suggest that all people are prone, at least to some extent, to self-interested biases across a wide variety of moral judgements.”
This research arrives at a particularly contentious moment in American politics. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, states have implemented widely varying abortion laws, from near-total bans to expanded protections. The findings suggest that beneath the surface-level moral debates might lie deeper concerns about sexual behavior and social norms.
Dr. Moon notes that both sides of the abortion debate rally behind memorable slogans: “It’s possible that the commonly-voiced justifications for pro-life positions, such as sanctity-of-life concerns, are not actually the cause of pro-life attitudes, but are more socially desirable than other possible justifications.”
“I think this is a common process that happens within all of us,” he added. “We often don’t know where our attitudes come from, but when we present them to others, we naturally want to present the best arguments we can think of. In this case, saying you oppose abortion because you care about life is probably more convincing than saying you don’t want society to be accepting of casual sex.”
The study contributes to a growing body of research examining how moral judgments can be influenced by unstated motivations and self-interest. The authors suggest that similar patterns might be found across other politically charged issues, from immigration to economic policy.
As abortion continues to be a defining issue in American politics, this research offers a more nuanced understanding of the psychological forces at play—reminding us that the stated reasons for our deeply held beliefs may not always tell the complete story.
If you found this piece useful, please consider supporting our work with a small, one-time or monthly donation. Your contribution enables us to continue bringing you accurate, thought-provoking science and medical news that you can trust. Independent reporting takes time, effort, and resources, and your support makes it possible for us to keep exploring the stories that matter to you. Together, we can ensure that important discoveries and developments reach the people who need them most.
