The strategic use of harm-based moral arguments in the context of women's bodily autonomy.

Abstract

Women's bodies have long been the subject of restrictive policies and practices, and the discourse on whether or not these are justified often focuses on a universal moral concern: harm. But are those arguing for or against restrictions on women's bodily autonomy truly as concerned about harm as they claim or is harm also used strategically? In seven studies (total N = 3,431), we find that concerns about harm are a common theme in the discourse around the control of women's bodies (Studies 1-3). However, concerns about harm do not seem to truly underlie views on women's bodily autonomy in all cases (Studies 2a-b and 3a-b). Instead, people strategically adjust their use of harm-based arguments (relative to fairness-based and purity-based arguments) depending on what they regard as useful to justify their preexisting views (Study 3a-b) and to convince others of their own opinion (Study 4a-b). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).