In this paper, I begin by distinguishing between the moral evaluation of the law that criminalizes abortion and the moral evaluation of abortion itself. In the public debate on abortion, these are issues that we frequently find mixed up, and that must be analyzed separately. Regarding the moral evaluation of the law, there are at least two possible ways of assessing it: in terms of the consequences of the law and in terms of women’s rights. I argue that anti-abortion laws have negative consequences at different levels: for the women who are denied termination of their pregnancies when they do not want to go on with them, for unwanted children, and for society at large. These laws also infringe upon some of women’s most fundamental rights in a way no other law does, requiring them to sacrifice their freedom, autonomy, privacy, and future life, and putting their health and bodily integrity at risk. However, according to those with a conservative view on abortion, none of this justifies the intentional killing of an embryo, which they take as a person with a right to life. I argue that there are no good arguments in favor of considering an embryo to be a person since on all accounts, the ascription of personhood requires the presence of mental or psychological properties, which do not appear until the end of the second trimester of pregnancy. We cannot ascribe a right to life to the embryo, either. Therefore, there is no justification for all the negative consequences of anti-abortion laws and for the infringement of women’s rights.