One of the largest controversial topics in society is the argument of abortion. Most individuals fall under one of two categories regarding their opinions, thoughts, or beliefs. That is, some take the side of pro-life, while others agree with pro-choice. Although most people have opinions on the subject of abortion, it is crucial to understand both sides of the argument before not only attempting to prove one's own, but also deciding which side he or she truly agrees with.

As for my own thoughts, I side with pro-life, believing that aborting an unborn child is a form of murder, as it is a potential life. Growing up in the church, I have agreed with this concept for quite some time. I find this research topic not only interesting, but also important since it is a subject that is argued constantly, both personally and professionally. I also have a strong opinion about the topic, therefore find it much more intriguing than other arguments. After researching the abortion debate, I have come to realize that most people, including myself, make their decision, pro-choice or pro-life, without actually knowing the other side's arguments. My research did not change my opinion in any way, but I read several strong arguments which sided with pro-choice. Although I have no personal experience or true qualification regarding this topic, I still have a voiced opinion, as I am a free citizen able to make and share my own decisions. 

In Bertha Manninen's book, "Pro-life, Pro-choice: Shared Values in the Abortion Debate", she attempts to clarify why the abortion debate is so controversial, and what one needs to know in order to better understand what he or she believes. Each chapter discussed a different piece of the argument, most consisting of ideas that are rarely mentioned when debating abortion, such as the father of the unborn child's decision. Manninen claims pro-choice, while also stating that she sometimes understands the pro-life decision. She spends the majority of her book sharing information about pro-choice, rather than cutting down the idea of pro-life. She is quick to point out that pro-choice, giving a woman the right to choose whether or not to abort her unborn child, is not the same as pro-abortion, yearning and encouraging women to choose abortion before other options. Lastly, she concludes that the choice of whether or not to abort is a decision of parenthood. The author has not had personal experience with abortion, but has had close relationships with many who have. She did a large amount of research regarding the topic, as well as reaching out to many individuals who had personally dealt with the decision of abortion, therefore making her book a reliable source.

Charles Donovan, the author of the article "Better Reporting of Abortions", takes a different approach to the issue. Instead of stating his beliefs or opinions towards the controversy, he attempts to bring awareness, such as how many abortions are really going on, therefore how big of a controversy it really is. Meaning, if the public is told how often it occurs and around what age group, some might change their thoughts. Although statistics and numbers do not define ethics, he concludes with claiming that society is arguing in the dark, if they are not aware of all of the facts regarding abortion. Donovan's article, found in the New York Times, is used as a reliable source, due to the positions he holds. He is not only the president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, but also the head of research over an anti-abortion group. He is also considered a reliable source because he kept his opinion out of the discussion.

Frank Pavone, priest and author of the article "Why We Can't Agree to Disagree", focused on the pro-life decision above all else. Instead of using statistics or personal examples to back up his argument, he used religion. He used Christianity to convince his readers that abortion is wrong, regardless of the reason for it. He discussed the idea that people often disregard the issue of abortion all together, saying that they will ultimately "agree to disagree". However, Pavone claims that asking someone who is pro-life to "agree to disagree" is asking them to change their values. He also states that abortion should not be taken lightly in that manner, but instead focused on the fact that it is murder. Although Frank Pavone has no position other than priest, I found him a reliable source, as he has taken a side in the abortion debate through his faith.

I believe that the research question of asking how one chooses a side, pro-life or pro-choice, is arguable because many people do not know every aspect of it. Some find themselves balancing back and forth between the two, without fully agreeing with one. As for my standpoint, I found the "Better Reporting for Abortions" article interesting because the author had strong points about knowing all information before jumping into a debate. As a believer in pro-life, I disagreed with Bertha Manninen's book, however, she covered several aspects of the pro-choice side I had not thought of. I agreed with the "Why We Can't Agree to Disagree" article, as it attempts to break the idea that the controversy of abortion can be settled with a small agreement. In order to create a strong paper, I should search for more topics that argue each side, covering all parts of the argument instead of just a few.

