I am interested in this research question because as a Catholic it is a very controversial topic that should be addressed as soon as possible. I believe that abortion is a murder of a life, however it should be legal since it is, in my opinion, a necessary evil. People should be entitled to certain rights, especially if their wellbeing is at stake, which many women are when having an unplanned pregnancy. Their socioeconomic status and even their health is at stake with pregnancy. This research question affects my moral values since I agree to what is essentially murder, but at a legal stand point, parents are responsible for their children until they are adults. This includes unborn children, which is all the more reason to justify abortion since unborn children have zero choices to begin with. I feel that I can write about this since my religious beliefs supposedly contradicts my beliefs on abortion, where abortion is acceptable even though it is murder. Personally, I have not met anyone that had chosen abortion. The only experience I have with the abortion argument is that I have been taught to be Pro-Life at home and church, but believe in Pro-Choice through my belief that it is a human right.



Even though they are at a different point in life than others, fetuses are just as much of a human as those that are born. They have their own biological functions, even varying in DNA from the parents. No matter the circumstance, human beings are entitled to the right to life, since murder is morally and legally wrong.

This article is valuable to my argument, because it summarizes the main counterargument towards abortion. In order to create a good argument, it should be vital to include the main counterargument in comparison to the main argument that I am making. This could help create a common ground for the pro-life and pro-choice arguments. The value at stake of this argument is that fetal life is equivalent in importance to those that are already living. The potential for the fetus' life is and should be upheld.

The author is a member of the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life group. This shows that there could be a clear bias, where the author is already decidedly to be pro-life and in fact whose writing is largely motivated to persuade others to see the negative aspects of abortion.


The Zika Virus has been going around causing microcephaly in fetuses, which raises up the issue of Abortion. Abortion is more accepted due to medical needs, however is still stigmatized otherwise. The Zika incidence will cause disability rights arguments collide with abortion rights arguments, since this disease causes the child to be born with a disability, unless s/he is aborted.

This article is valuable since it shows that there could be a need for abortions in the present or future. This opens up the argument that abortions are a necessary evil, because children born with microcephaly are disabled like a child with other birth defects. This shows that parents should have an option in giving birth and raising a child that will live a substandard life from birth without a fault of their own. The value at stake of this argument is that there should be some leniency on abortion, especially when there is a crisis that requires it. This article shows that even though the fetus is alive, it could be aborted since it is confirmed through infection of the Zika Virus that it could not survive after birth.

The author writes many articles for the Huffington Post, but does not write on a specific topic. This can hurt the credibility because it shows that the author is writing for reasons other than pursuing an argument. This article is mainly informative, which is low in bias in nature.

Women who are lower-income based are more likely to be pregnant. Abortion should be an important option for all women, but especially for these lower-income based women, because pregnancy requires much attention of the mother. In low-income families, it is helpful, and maybe even important that the mother also works. Pregnancies limit low-income families to provide for themselves, but perhaps more importantly, to their fetal child.

This article is valuable because it helps describe the type of people that get abortions, which consists much of the lower-income women. This will help the argument that abortions are important options for these women and their families, because a strong family requires decent financial support. The value at stake for this argument is that abortion is an important option for women since an unplanned pregnancy can derail many aspects of their life.

The author is a writer for The American Prospect. The author's written articles vary in topic which can be an indication that the author is not as passionate on the topic at hand as others. This can be evident that the article is low in bias.


This research question is arguable because there are multiple arguments for both for and against abortion. The main argument against abortion is that it is a moral wrongdoing, however the main argument for abortion is that it should be a legal right for women. Women should have control over their bodies, which is evident in the socially acceptable contraceptive, birth control pills. The counterargument for this is that the fetus should have rights of their own, however I believe that the fetus' rights are taken up by their parents, especially its mother. Some agreements between the sources is that abortion is murder of a life. Disagreements between the sources is how justifiable the murder is in relation to other things, like the life of the mother or knowingly giving birth to a disabled child. The different sources' perspectives can help support my own perspective since I believe that women are entitled to that right, even if their fetus must be killed. I may need to revise the research question to reflect a specific aspect of abortion instead of the main arguments for both for and against abortion.

