Debates on women’s rights almost never end in a practical conclusion. It’s seemingly impossible for such conversations to focus solely on questions of health, safety or policy; somehow, it consistently spirals into a moral territory.

Abortions are treated as a matter of what counts as “life.” Sex work is treated as a matter of whether or not selling sex is inherently degrading. Even contraception and fertility treatments are treated as matters of family values or the “right kind” of motherhood.

As psychological researcher Thekla Morgenroth — lead author of a 2025 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — explained to me in an interview, “Understanding where disagreements about women’s bodily autonomy are coming from seems more important than ever right now, at a time where women’s rights are under threat.”

Morgenroth and their colleagues’ research suggests that, today, women’s bodies are no longer just bodies. They’re treated as sites of cultural struggle, wherein politics and ideology seemingly collide.

But why is it that women’s autonomy so consistently becomes a question of morality? And what does that mean for the future of women’s rights? Here’s a breakdown, according to the 2025 study.

Harm As A Universal Language

One of the clearest findings from the study is that harm is a universal mode of communication when it comes to women’s bodily autonomy. “It seems like everybody appeals to harm, regardless of what side of the debate they are on,” Morgenroth explained.

Take abortion, for instance. As Morgenroth illustrates, those with pro-life stances often refer to harm caused to unborn life, as well as the potential harm women face psychologically due to abortions. Those who are pro-choice, on the other hand, are also likely to emphasize harm — but rather in the context of the health risks and emotional distress of carrying an unwanted pregnancy.

Morgenroth notes that we can see the exact same patterns appear in debates about sex work, too. Opponents argue that selling sex is inherently harmful; it’s referred to as degrading, exploitative and psychologically damaging to women. Supporters, conversely, speak to the violence sex workers face when their work is criminalized, and the protections gained when they’re able to report their abuse without risking their own arrest.

Harm may seem, on the surface, as though it’s common ground. Both sides of these debates can easily agree that preventing harm is of the utmost importance. However, in practice, “harm” is an incredibly loaded word.

Each side defines it in different ways, and each side will flex those definitions to defend that which they already believe. This is why discussions that should be otherwise straightforward — like those on protecting women’s health, safety or dignity — often become deadlocked at a certain point.

Fairness Versus Purity

The findings of the 2025 study suggest that disagreements regarding women’s rights and autonomy occur due to the fact that harm, in fact, isn’t the only moral defense relied upon in these discussions. Specifically, the research also looked at two others: fairness and purity.

Those who support women’s bodily autonomy are most inclined to emphasize fairness. Most of these arguments speak of women as entitled to and deserving of making choices about their own bodies, without facing any discrimination. At the heart of most feminist movements and slogans (such as “My body, my choice,” and, “Women’s rights are human rights”) is an appeal to fairness and justice.

Meanwhile, opponents of women’s bodily autonomy tend to lean heavily on purity-based arguments. Sex work is depicted as “corrupting” or “dirty.” Abortion is framed as a violation of the sanctity of life. Even the most natural parts of many women’s lives — such as menstruation, clothing or even breastfeeding — can be framed as being impure or as moral transgressions.

Many of these arguments, in essence, use women’s choices and bodies as a pipeline to much larger ideas about family, community, religion and morality.

This division between fairness and purity is deeply political. As Morgenroth explains, “Purity is often primarily endorsed as a moral value by conservatives” Conversely, they continue, “Fairness is more strongly endorsed by liberals.”

Debates, as a result, seemingly can’t focus on policies or outcomes alone. Often, they’re treated as a matter of incompatible worldviews, each of which is rooted in a wholly moral foundation. Compromise, in turn, becomes almost impossible.

Why Persuasion Rarely Works

If you’ve ever had a discussion regarding women’s rights (or any other matter, at that) only for it to end up going in circles, you would not be the first. Nor will you be the last.

Morgenroth’s research suggests persuasion in these conversations will very often fail, as people aren’t always expressing their true beliefs. Instead, we tend to use moral arguments strategically. Both sides of the debates will tailor their words as much as possible in order to win others over.

Conservatives, for example, may use both purity- and harm-based arguments when speaking to fellow conservatives, but focus solely on harm when trying to appeal to liberals. Liberals, on the other hand, may emphasize fairness when talking to each other, but are equally likely to shift toward harm when trying to persuade conservatives.

The problem with this is that, as Morgenroth explains, “Our research suggests that this strategy is not necessarily successful.”

That is, when we hear arguments that don’t align with our own position, we’ll simply adjust which moral values we claim to care about. If you, say, explained to someone that the decriminalization of sex work can effectively reduce harm, then they might inexplicably care less about harm and start doubling down on purity instead.

This isn’t to say that we abandon our beliefs when presented with new or conflicting information. Rather, we want to protect our beliefs by shifting the moral ground that lays beneath them.

Whose Harm Counts?

Although we can’t seem to agree on what it means, harm remains a constant factor in discussions on women’s rights. In this sense, the more pressing question is who gets to decide which harm counts?

“Often, our views on what is harmful are primarily influenced by our own experiences, values and the experiences and values of those around us,” Morgenroth explains. “Additionally, the voices of people who have more power and influence are often taken more seriously. But many issues of bodily autonomy primarily affect women who don’t necessarily have a lot of power and influence.”

The latter part of this explanation cannot be understated. A majority of the women who are most harshly impacted by restrictions on bodily autonomy (i.e. low-income women, sex workers, women with limited political power, women of color) are not the ones shaping the public conversation.

“Those are the voices who we should listen to,” says Morgenroth. Yet policymakers, religious leaders and activists with platforms are usually the ones to define the terms of life-changing debates.

And, too often, their definitions of harm tend to exclude or erase the perspectives of those living within the very realities they are legislating. This, as a result, makes it so that debates about women’s rights will continue to be abstract, moralized and detached from any actual lived experience. In turn, the women in most dire need of protection get near to no say in what harm actually looks like in their own lives.

“In another line of work, my collaborators and I found that people moralize women’s bodies — that is, they view their bodies through a moral lens and apply morality to their bodies in a way they don’t do for men,” Morgenroth explains.

This is precisely why women’s choices are presumed to carry such a heavy cultural weight. They’re treated as moral symbols, rather than a matter of autonomy. Men’s decisions, by contrast, are very rarely moralized in the same way.

Women’s rights will remain under constant threat so long as this double standard persists. And so long as women’s bodies are viewed as moral battlegrounds, their autonomy will always be contested. These debates will likely keep circling around harm, fairness and purity. But, underneath all of it, is the stubborn refusal to let women’s bodies simply belong to women.

Many of us carry hidden assumptions about women’s roles. Take this science-backed test to uncover yours: Gender Role Beliefs Scale.

A similar version of this article can also be found on Forbes.com, here.