The issue of pro-choice versus pro-life has been a heated debate for decades. Commonly used to be synonymous with the issue of morality and legality of abortion, pro-choice versus pro-life encompasses multiple other very controversial topics. Such topics include euthanasia, assisted suicide, the death penalty, and use of contraceptive tools.
On one end of the spectrum is pro-choice. Pro-choice proponents argue that a person should have complete control and right over themselves and what they choose to do with their body, including their reproductive system (Head). Granted, these rights come with a contingency; one person’s rights may infringe on the rights of another. Advocates of this movement, although do not always agree with every argument set forth under the pro-life category, generally insist that abortion, contraceptives, and “mercy-killing” all become legalized. …show more content…
This stance is often held by those of strict religious backgrounds (Head). People with a pro-life stance believe that it is the government’s right, or rather duty to its country, to preserve all forms of human life (Head). This preservation is often advertised as a blindly undertaken task, of which viability and quality of life are completely disregarded (Head).
This issue strikes a deep set anger inside of me, especially concerning how the United States government has chosen to deal with the topic of abortion in past years. Our country, founded with the core idea of liberty, should grant people unrestricted control over their own body, as long as this control does not interfere or infringe with another person’s rights. However, people, namely men in power who such laws will have little effect on, have felt it necessary to impose bans and restrictions on what people may do with their
On one end of the spectrum is pro-choice. Pro-choice proponents argue that a person should have complete control and right over themselves and what they choose to do with their body, including their reproductive system (Head). Granted, these rights come with a contingency; one person’s rights may infringe on the rights of another. Advocates of this movement, although do not always agree with every argument set forth under the pro-life category, generally insist that abortion, contraceptives, and “mercy-killing” all become legalized. …show more content…
This stance is often held by those of strict religious backgrounds (Head). People with a pro-life stance believe that it is the government’s right, or rather duty to its country, to preserve all forms of human life (Head). This preservation is often advertised as a blindly undertaken task, of which viability and quality of life are completely disregarded (Head).
This issue strikes a deep set anger inside of me, especially concerning how the United States government has chosen to deal with the topic of abortion in past years. Our country, founded with the core idea of liberty, should grant people unrestricted control over their own body, as long as this control does not interfere or infringe with another person’s rights. However, people, namely men in power who such laws will have little effect on, have felt it necessary to impose bans and restrictions on what people may do with their