The conflict between Pro-Choice and Pro-lifers, is an ongoing dispute among society. Pro-life is commonly known as anti-abortion in all circumstances. This extends to the use of birth control and contraceptives as well. Pro-choice is the belief and push for these choices to be made on an individual basis. This topic has continued to fill conversation and media as no feasible solution as been found. However, through my social observations I have begun to notice the bias and judgment directed towards the Pro-Choice side. I have taken interest in researching the positive benefits of their side to surface a new understanding of pro-choice beliefs. Pro-Choice does not mean Pro- abortion, nor am I advertising the positive benefits of exercising that right. I am however, informing readers on the benefits pro-choice entails, far beyond abortions. I attended a Catholic high school and have been exposed and almost suffocated with the values and beliefs of pro-life; All of which labeled pro- choice as inhumane, immoral, and evil. This judgment yet overlooked many necessities protected by pro-choice rights. These including the use of birth control and contraceptives. These medications and appliances have greatly impacted our society socially, physically and financially. With the use of birth control ranging from menstrual control, to hormone reduction, its benefits surpass that of avoiding pregnancy. Regardless, the use of birth control and contraceptives to avoid pregnancy has greatly decreased the rates of unwanted pregnancies in possibly unstable, or financially struggling households. As a result- greatly reducing the rates of child support, and medical bills for young children. Aside from their physical differences however, there are moral, legal, and technical differences between each argument that demand attention. For say the medical and moral differences in when an egg becomes a person. As well as the legal side of who has what rights in the relationship between Mother and fetus. All of these aspects collectively become shaded in the debate between the two sides, leaving pro-choice misrepresented. 

"Defending Choice" an article by Steven Goldberg, where the author focuses on the fundamental aspects of this debate is extremely relevant to my argument. Throughout his article, Goldberg repeatedly highlights the religious context of this debate. Stating that pro-choicer believer abortion is a matter of religious beliefs and tolerances, and pro-lifers believe pro-choice advocates are defying the role of God. He states that with these wo conflicting ideas- no probable solution will come. However, the pro-choice side is much more ethical and modern than pro-life. The author focuses on the debate between issues including what makes a person a person, as well as the point when a person begins to be an independent (gain rights), and highlights the impractical solution implied by the reasoning of Catholics. As a sociologist and researcher, Goldberg observes and explores social interactions and disputes, making his article credible for my assignment. However, bias, his points and validations support my view on terminology and medically indifferent society.  

Likewise, an article by Emery Noemie explores the unethical practices of rejecting prolife care. In a society moving mainly towards prolife, it as been more evident that some practices have been rejected. However, Noemie explains the unethical practice of allowing religious and moral beliefs to effect medical treatment. In a world dependent on medical care, it is inappropriate to reject treatment to a patient as a result of your moral conscious. As long as a practice or treatment is deemed legal and necessary it cannot be rejected or altered to abide by a doctor's religious will. Noemie being a researcher as well, collected first hand stories allowing her article to be credibly resourceful to my research. 

My final source was an article directly pertaining directly to my topic. "Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion" an article with Reverend Carlton Veazey that discusses the common breaking points between the two sides. From deciphering between the medical and religious definitions of abortion, as well as constituting the legal standpoint on whose rights are whose, this article explores the stasis theory of this debate. In addition, it focuses on the idea of "middle ground". The first article to propose this idea, it states that with a heightened exposure to sexual education and encouraged social awareness of this topic in social and religious situations, we can greatly reduce the amount of unnecessary abortions- with allowing the occasional exception in physical and mental emergencies. Being a Reverend, Carlton is exposed daily to the prolife side of this debate, and expressing both sides technically and evenly, this article makes for a very unbiased and credible source. 

My argument is extremely arguable in that it is a debate between moral and social integrity and responsibility. With societies inability to reason and maintain an open mind, this debate continues to find no end or solution in the matter. My sources focus on the religious and medical indifferences in the argument, which are almost entirely in opposition of each other, leaving little to no agreements between the sides. These perspectives have broadened my own by informing me on the extensive background of prochoice beyond the want to abort a pregnancy. It puts into perspective the many other variables within this argument that are not evident to most of society. In revision of my research question, I need to explore a more definite and specific target for my argument- the debate between religion and modern society, verses the superficial and actual benefits of pro-choice rights. (WORD COUNT:911)

