Pro-life may be more complex than the policies on the surface. (SibRapid/Shutterstock)
In a nutshell
Strong abortion opponents don’t equally support all abortion-preventing policies, they prefer those that also discourage casual sex, even when all policies are described as preventing the same number of abortions at identical cost.
This pattern suggests that concerns about casual sexual behavior, not just sanctity of life, influence pro-life policy preferences, helping explain why compromise solutions involving contraception often fail.
The findings don’t imply dishonesty among pro-life individuals but reveal that human moral reasoning is more complex than our public arguments suggest, with similar hidden motivations likely driving attitudes across the political spectrum.
LOS ANGELES — Recent research suggests that opposition to abortion might stem from more than just concerns about protecting unborn life. While many pro-life supporters frame their position around protecting unborn children, their specific policy preferences hint at something else: a desire to limit casual sex.
The study, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, included 2,000 Americans and revealed that the strongest abortion opponents don’t equally support all policies that could reduce abortions. Instead, they favor approaches that would also discourage casual sex.
The Public vs. Private Face of Abortion Opposition
For decades, the abortion debate has been portrayed as a conflict between bodily autonomy and protecting life. Pro-life advocates often claim that life begins at conception and that abortion amounts to killing an innocent person. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey mentioned in the study found that 93% of people who oppose abortion in all cases strongly identify with the statement “Human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights.”
The researchers describe this as the “face-value account,” the straightforward idea that opposition to abortion comes primarily from moral concerns about ending human life. If this explanation were complete, pro-life individuals should support any policy that prevents abortions equally, regardless of what other effects those policies might have.
Both sides of the abortion debate are based on more than meets the eye. (© trac1 – stock.adobe.com)
But researchers propose an alternative “strategic account” suggesting that attitudes about abortion are also influenced by wishes to limit others’ casual sexual behavior. This desire to discourage casual sex appears across cultures and has been connected to attitudes toward various behaviors seen as related to casual sex, including recreational drug use and same-sex marriage.
Why would people who want to discourage casual sex oppose abortion? The researchers note that abortion access reduces a potential consequence of casual sex: unwanted pregnancy. If casual sex becomes less risky, it might become more common.
This connection between abortion and sexual behavior sometimes appears in pro-life rhetoric. The researchers point out that a judge with anti-abortion views once suggested that pregnancy and childbirth are “the price that women must pay for having sex.”
Testing Competing Explanations
To examine these competing explanations, the researchers ran a pilot study and two larger experiments. Participants were shown different policy proposals, all described as costing taxpayers the same amount and saving the same number of lives. The key difference was how these policies related to sexual behavior.
The options included: a bill punishing women seeking abortions (which would make casual sex riskier); abstinence-only sex education (which explicitly discourages casual sex); comprehensive sex education (which provides information about contraception but is sometimes seen as enabling casual sex); and a bill to save vulnerable newborns through critical care (which is neutral regarding sexual behavior).
People who strongly opposed abortion showed much higher support for policies that would restrict casual sex (the punishment bill and abstinence-only education) compared to comprehensive sex education, despite all three being described as preventing exactly the same number of abortions at identical taxpayer cost.
As participants’ opposition to abortion increased, their support for comprehensive sex education actually decreased. This contradicts what we would expect if protecting life were the only driver of abortion attitudes. If preventing abortion was the sole concern, all abortion-preventing policies should receive similar support.
These patterns remained even when accounting for factors typically associated with pro-life attitudes like religious beliefs, social conservatism, and economic conservatism. This indicates that the preference for policies discouraging casual sex isn’t simply a reflection of broader ideologies.
In their second experiment, participants confirmed the researchers’ assumptions about how these policies were perceived. Compared to comprehensive sex education, participants viewed both the punishment and abstinence-only policies as intended to decrease casual sexual behavior and likely to have that effect.
Implications for the Abortion Debate
Roe v. Wade marked a turning point in U.S. abortion law. Today, scientists are exploring what really drives support for anti-abortion policies, and it’s not just about protecting life. (© zimmytws – stock.adobe.com)
The researchers stress that their findings don’t necessarily mean pro-life individuals are being dishonest when they talk about protecting life. Instead, they suggest that people often aren’t fully aware of all the reasons they hold certain positions and use after-the-fact justifications to defend them. Making arguments about protecting babies may work better for persuading others, and may be sincerely believed by the arguers themselves, even if it doesn’t capture all the factors driving these attitudes.
The availability of abortion has concrete effects beyond political arguments. Being denied an abortion can harm a woman’s health, financial security, and social standing, as well as affect her existing children. The study mentions estimates that in the first year of a federal abortion ban, maternal deaths would increase 24% overall and 39% among Black women.
The researchers note that their work fits with the idea that people’s stated moral principles sometimes serve less as the primary drivers of attitudes and more as persuasive tools for influencing society. This doesn’t aim to single out pro-life individuals, either. Similar patterns likely exist across political divides, including among pro-choice advocates who emphasize bodily autonomy while supporting other laws that limit personal freedoms.
By acknowledging that our moral positions often have multiple, sometimes unconscious motivations, we might develop more nuanced approaches to reproductive policy. This research is not saying pro-life advocates are wrong about their beliefs; it’s that human moral reasoning is more intricate than the straightforward arguments we use in public discussions.
Paper Summary
Methodology
The researchers conducted three studies with American participants. In Experiment 1, they recruited 1,004 people, deliberately sampling more Republicans to ensure adequate representation of strong abortion opponents. Participants rated their opposition to abortion based on sanctity-of-life concerns and were randomly assigned to evaluate one of four policy proposals. All policies were described as costing $57 billion and saving 634,000 lives (fetal or newborn) over 10 years but varied in how they related to sexual behavior. In Experiment 2, 554 participants each evaluated all three abortion-related policies and also indicated whether they believed the policies were intended to influence casual sex.
Results
Both experiments showed that increasing opposition to abortion predicted greater support for policies that would discourage casual sex (punishment and abstinence-only education) but decreased support for comprehensive sex education—despite all being described as preventing the same number of abortions at identical cost. These patterns held even when controlling for religiosity, social conservatism, and economic conservatism. In Experiment 2, participants confirmed that they viewed the punishment and abstinence-only policies as intended to decrease casual sex and likely to have that effect compared to comprehensive sex education.
Limitations
The researchers acknowledge that desires to discourage casual sex are likely not the only factor in anti-abortion attitudes. The study focused on U.S. participants, and results might vary in other cultural contexts. The researchers measured desires to suppress casual sex indirectly rather than directly and note that perceived effectiveness of policies might be influenced by motivated reasoning. They emphasize that their findings don’t suggest pro-life individuals are uniquely engaging in self-interested moral judgments.
Discussion and Takeaways
The study reveals the complexity behind abortion attitudes, showing that while concerns about protecting life matter in abortion opposition, desires to discourage casual sex also shape policy preferences. This helps explain why compromise solutions involving contraception often fail. The researchers suggest their findings may apply to moral positions across the political spectrum and call for future research examining whether pro-choice beliefs truly reflect impartial concerns for bodily autonomy. They hope this work leads to more nuanced approaches to reproductive policy that acknowledge the multiple factors driving moral positions.
Funding and Disclosures
Jordan W. Moon received funding from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Investissement d’Avenir program, ANR-17-EURE-0010). The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Publication Information
The study, “Pro-Life Policy Preferences Partly Reflect Desires to Suppress Casual Sexual Behavior, Not Solely Sanctity of Life Concerns,” was conducted by Jordan W. Moon (Brunel University London) and Jaimie Arona Krems (UCLA). It was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2025.