Dating back to 1973 with the landmark case Roe versus Wade, abortion has been a point of contention for several decades. Deemed legal to terminate a woman's pregnancy in the first trimester, the specifications have narrowed down over the years and have grew in complication and relevancy. Especially during this election year of 2016, the particular debate on the topic of abortion is kairotic. The argument continues as to whether abortion throughout fetal viability remains as a woman's right protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or if abortion regardless is human murder.

This topic interests me not only because I am a female and this law could potentially apply to me in the future, but mainly due to the social and economic welfare of the United States. Raised in a Catholic household, I would have expected my right-winged thoughts to align with my parents', which remain pro-life. Even though my opinion strays far from my family, I am confident in pro-choice decisions helping America long term. This morning I had a check up at the doctor, where I remained in the waiting room for half an hour observing a girl younger than me whose stomach protruded from her body. Without a mother or any guidance in sight, I couldn't help but wonder where her baby would be five years from now. Sadly, this is the case is doctor's offices around America and is part of the reason I am so interested researching abotion. After many searches on Ebsco, and other well-respected databases, I will be qualified to write about this topic.

The main point in the first article from CNN is that abortion rates would decrease, therefore somewhat compromising with pro-life advocates, if the government ensures support for women to continue with the pregnancy an the baby they may want. However, if government takes action to "support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be," there could still be debate on how to do so. (Frum). Frum is a reliable and very knowledgeable source, considering he was a speechwriter for former president George W. Bush. However, he is a firm neoconservative, regarding politics, so bias on the political spectrum concerning abortion beliefs may be heavy. 

This second article is not from an as reliable source, however the student writer brings up a great point. As she clearly has bias, stating Keresztes herself is a liberal, pro-choice member, I have to be meticulous about weaving through the facts versus values. However, this was posted on the Amherst Student page, so I would like to think it is resourceful. Keresztes offers a different perspective on being pro-choice, a lighter way to view things. Instead of assuming the opposite of pro-life is "pro-death," she makes readers consider the meaning of choice. It does not mean every pregnant woman is getting an abortion, but one has the freedom to if necessary. 

The third article is from a branch of the Huffington Post, a well-known online news aggregator, and is written by a college student. I am least likely to use this source, since I have no supporting information on Kelseigh Ingram's background. However, I am more likely to trust her words due to her insertion of a personal anecdote. From a completely different outlook, Ingram is pro-choice for a more unique, private reason. When playing devil's advocate, one would curb the idea of abortion by saying "give your baby up for adoption, since there are many people that yearn for one." Ingram considers this patronizing in a way to others like herself, and mainly for the fact that she does not want to burden others and their bodies. She views it as "unfair to make someone go through a pregnancy against their will" as if it were not their job.

This specific research exigence is arguable because there are many different points to each side with varying backgrounds in people. The debate remains an open question largely in spite of human morals. Since there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, values have a big impact on this argument. Also, values are hard to determine ethical or not since they are people's opinions and not cold, hard facts. With all of these different perspectives arising in my research, my personal opinion keeps fluctuating on the topic, so it is hard to remain neutral when reading new information. The agreements and disagreements in the sources are all so strong, that it is makes the controversy even tenser. From trying to define the actuality of human murder to attempting to decide what is best for America's welfare, the debate could be everlasting. To make my paper more concentrated; I am considering narrowing down to a certain aspect of one pro-choice reason and expanding on it. 

