Three philosophers present competing perspectives on one of the most contested moral and political questions in contemporary life. Michael Tooley argues for a liberal position, contending that early abortion is morally permissible because fetuses lack the psychological properties necessary for a right to life. Celia Wolf-Devine and Philip E. Devine argue for a conservative position, defending fetal rights and arguing that abortion represents a failure to recognize the value of human life at all its stages. Alison M. Jaggar argues for a feminist position, contending that abortion rights are essential for women's equality and that bodily autonomy must be central to any adequate analysis. Each philosopher responds to the others, creating a genuine dialogue rather than merely a collection of separate essays. The book demonstrates that rigorous philosophical analysis can clarify the terms of debate even when it cannot resolve underlying disagreements. Readers will find here the strongest available arguments for each position, presented by philosophers committed to intellectual honesty and careful reasoning. The format allows readers to weigh competing considerations and reach their own conclusions while understanding why thoughtful people disagree. A valuable resource for students, citizens, and anyone seeking to understand the philosophical foundations of arguments they encounter in public debate.