7 September 2017
Abortion: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
To commence with, a question may be what exactly is abortion. Any individual may have their
different perception of what abortion means. According to Meriam-Webster, it states abortion “is
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death
of the embryo or fetus: such as a spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks
of gestation, compare miscarriage or induced expulsion of a human fetus.” (Meriam-Webster,
1828) Across the United States, the issue of abortion is a concerning problem in our society. As
reported by Health Care for Women International “Abortion is one of the most common surgical
procedures performed on women in the United States, with at least three in 10 women experiencing
at least one abortion by age 45. Nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended, and about four in 10
of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies end in abortion.”
(Medoff, 2016) Abortion even influenced the U.S election process between the democrats and the
republicans. Individuals protest, movements and rallies about abortion. There are two sides in this
debate, pro-life and pro-choice. These two sides contradict each other immensely. As stated in an
article on Collins “Someone who is pro-life thinks that women do not have a right to choose
whether to continue their pregnancy and give birth to a child and that abortion is wrong in most or
all circumstances.” (Collins, 2017) As for pro-choice, according to an article on Feminist Women’s
Health Center it states “To be pro-choice is to support self-determination to make decisions free
from judgment. Pro-Choice is the responsibility to yourself and the freedom to decide to take
control of your own life process. Pro-Choice is not just about reproduction but the freedom to
decide your life course with the support and respect of others. It represents power and pride in
self.” (FWHC, 2002) Both pro-choice and pro-life individuals have surfaced decisions about
having a common ground about the topic of abortion.
Furthermore, pro-choice, and pro-life women and induvial have different perspectives and
views about abortion. There are different organizations and groups that pronounce each of their
perspectives publicly. As for the pro-choice side, they had a movement of organization and
activisms in the abortion conflict. According to a book reference from Staggaenborg, it referred
to the emergence which legalized abortions in the states. “In the 1960s a movement led by family
planning activists and feminists emerged to challenge state anti-abortion laws, resulting in the
landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the U.S.
Using interviews with the past and present activists and historical records of movement
organizations, this book traces the development of the "pro-choice" movement from its origins
through the 1980s” (Staggenborg, 2000) More on individuals who believe abortion should be a
choice for women. There may be women who experience rape or incest that may not want to keep
their child. As stated in an article on Heroic Media there are numerous reasons such as “Reason
number one: Too Young or Immature. Not ready for responsibility (32% of total). Reason number
two: Economic (30% of total) Reason number three: To avoid adjusting life (16% of total). Reason
number four: poor relationship with the father (12% of total). Reason number five: Enough
Children already (8% of total) So those five reasons accounted for 98%. The remaining 2% of the
reasons included rape, incest, physical health of a mother, and fetal health.” (Heroic Media, 2015)
An organization for the pro-choice side would be NARAL Pro-Choice America, which they believe
in “Each day, we organize and mobilize to protect that freedom by fighting for access to abortion
care, birth control paid parental leave and protections from pregnancy discrimination. We believe
abortion must remain legal and accessible. We are the foot soldiers who work to ensure that
abortion access is not only protected but expanded for every American.” ( Naral, 2017) I believe
that choosing to keep or abort the unborn child, is an immense and important decision that should
be taken wisely.
To continue, to the perspective of the pro-life individuals, they believe that abortion is murder
and is like taking away an innocent human life. Also, abortion could lead to medical complications
for pregnancy later in their adulthood life. My mother’s best friend since childhood had a couple
abortions throughout her life. As she entered her adulthood and middle life, she regrets all those
abortions because now she can’t have children anymore. The abortion created a complication in
her can give birth to children. There is a reason why some people believe that every child should
have the right to live. According to TFP Student Action, it states the reasons why they support the
pro-life side of abortion: "Abortion Offends God, Procedure abortion is never a mere personal
choice but a grave offense against God and His creation. Life starts conception, living beings come
into existence all at once and gradually unfold their world of innate potential. Mankind must
protect innocent life,” Pregnancy termination" stops the beating heart of an innocent human being
and is in direct contradiction to this most basic premise of human nature. Lastly, abortion is unsafe,
the abortion industry is largely unregulated; LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 249 women
killed by legal abortions.” (TFP, 2009) From these two perspectives, I believe it’s a matter of a
person’s opinion on what they particularly believe in. There are some pro-life movements that go
as strict as leading women to legal actions to a person who completes abortion. As stated in an
article about the United States pro-life movement “Pro-life supporters believe that any
endangerment to the unborn fetus should be a criminal offense. They believe that abortion, which
many deem to be a fetal homicide, is a criminal act and that prosecuting abortion providers is an
opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers. Opponents of fetal homicide laws argue
that such legislation is contrary to individual freedoms as they could lead to more infringement on
women’s rights and access to health care. In some countries with strict abortion laws, women have
been arrested and investigated after having an unintended miscarriage. If US pro-life initiatives
are successful, abortion providers could face prison time for performing the procedure and mothers
who are deemed to have endangered their fetus could also face criminal penalties.” (Daniels, 2016)
An organization that also supports the pro-life movement side would be National Right to Life
organization, their goal is “Working to restore legal protection to the most defenseless members
of our society who are threatened by abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. The
mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of
humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural
death” (Nrlc, 1968) Assuredly human life is precious and valuable, individuals should be
accounted for a life.
Concludingly, certainly both stakeholders oppose each other and seems to be at odds. The
reason why is one is anti-abortion and the other is pro-abortion, or pro-life and pro-choice. There’s
been a rise of concern if both pro-life and pro-choice abortion will ever come to a compromise.
This may come to a surprise, but pro-life and pro-choice individuals do agree on certain things.
For example, favor paid leave, favor sick leave, and favor $15 minimum wage. There have been
rallies and discussions for these two opposing stakeholders to reach a compromise. As I’m thinking
about the stakeholders, I believe there is one thing that they also have in common. They both have
in the type of way care for the child’s well-being. For example, for the pro-choice women, she
may want to abort her child because she doesn’t want that child to enter a world of poverty
depending on her financial stability. As for the pro-life women, she may want to give birth to the
child but not keep it, and put the child up for adoption so they can be with a more well-suited
family. Both stakeholders, I believe need to reach a specific compromise to achieve their purpose.
In other words, both sides will be happy with the agreement. These discussions could be held at
state meeting specifically about abortion. Also, another way could be for each side discussing their
views in a peaceful manner, maybe through protest to achieve their purpose. Reaching a
compromise for both pro-choice and pro-life individual is difficult since both their opinions are
equally valuable in their point of views. The first compromise could be for the new generation and
present should refuse to take part of the abortion wars and listen to both views on both sides of the
topic. There are certain things that need to be in place for the compromise to be accomplished. For
example, individuals shouldn’t have a short-sighted mindset view. Being open to listening to other
individual’s views, like the pro-choice and pro-life women. The second compromise I believe
would work, is to let each side do as they please. Meaning if one person wants to keep their child
they can. If the other wants to abort their child that’s their choice. At the end of the day, I believe
each person has a conscience and will certainly do the right thing if they desire to.
“Abortion.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/abortion. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Attebery, Brett . “The Top 5 Reasons Why Women Choose to Abort Their Babies.” Heroic
Media, 23 Feb. 2017, heroicmedia.org/the-top-5-reasons-why-women-choose-to-abort-theirbabies/. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Daniels, Nila, MPH. "United States Pro-Life Movement." Salem Press Encyclopedia, January.
“Definition of 'pro-Life'.” Pro-Life definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary,
www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/pro-life. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
Medoff, Marshall. "Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: The Relationship between State Abortion
Policy and Child Well-Being in the United States." Health Care for Women International, vol.
37, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 158-169.
Staggenborg, Suzanne. Pro-Choice Movement : Organization and Activism in the Abortion
Conflict. Cary :Oxford University Press, 2000., 2000. EBSCOhost,
What does Pro-Choice mean to you?, 4 Oct. 2002, www.fwhc.org/take-action/pro-choice.htm.
Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.
“10 Reasons Why Abortion is Evil & Not a Pro-Choice.” TFP Student Action, 15 May 2009,
www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/10-reasons-why-abortion-is-evil-not-a-pro-choice. Accessed 11
Reviewed By:Mansoor Al-Khaldi
Read through your peer’s essay, making notes in the margins, highlighting, circling, etc. Then
answer the questions below in 2-3 sentences.
What is the writer’s thesis?
According to Meriam-Webster, it states abortion “is the termination of a pregnancy after,
accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as a
spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation, compare
miscarriage or induced expulsion of a human fetus.” (Meriam-Webster, 1828) Across the United
States, the issue of abortion is a concerning problem in our society.
How does the writer prepare the reader for the essay?
By defining what is meant by abortion and illustrating how important it is by showing some statistics and real
numbers. In addition to stating each stakeholder perspective in the introduction, which gives the reader a brief idea
about the essay and what he can expect.
After reading the introduction, what do you expect this essay to be about?
The community’s impression regarding abortion, and two teams’ supporters and opposers to it, each team would
provide it’s point of view, and evidences.
What do you think of the paper’s overall organization? Do the paragraphs make sense where they
are? Should anything be rearranged?
I think it’s well arranged and organized in general, nothing to mention.
What’s the strongest paragraph? Why does it work so well?
Which paragraph needs the most work? What advice/insight can you provide to help?
Does the conclusion just repeat the same info as the intro? If so, how can the writer adjust the
conclusion to look ahead instead of reflecting on what’s already been written?
Why was this essay worth reading? What did the writer teach you that you didn’t already know?
It is worth reading, since I didn’t read any article or essay previously about abortion, all I know was some general
information. I learned from the essay the numbers of abortion and the reasons that led pregnant women to abort their
children, besides the anti-abortion perspective, which I had no idea about previously.
What was the best part of this essay?
What should the writer make sure to pay attention to as he/she revises this draft?
Nuclear Proliferation: A global Perspective
9 states with nuclear weapons, and much more with the in-hand capability of creating
nuclear weapons. Like every other technology, nuclear technology has its own pros and cons.
But the question remains is that where this technology is leading our world? What will be the
ultimate end? Time will answer these questions but currently, there is an issue going on between
two parties regarding this growing nuclear technology in the world. The debate on the issue of
nuclear technology starts with the emergence of nuclear technology in the world. Peaceful use of
nuclear technology become common after a long time after the world becomes aware of nuclear
technology. Nuclear proliferation is a phenomenon of the spread of nuclear technology through
one state to other states. On the basis of opinion on the spread of nuclear weapons technology,
there are two established schools of thought or stakeholders that support different ideas. First,
nuclear optimists, these are the scholars, researchers, and leaders who think nuclear technology is
essential to maintain peace all over the world. Second are the people who oppose the idea of a
nuclear-armed world, they argue that these weapons will ultimately end up destroying the world.
By viewing the current situation, it is not possible for both stakeholders to change their views
until there is a common ground. Optimists want peace but they want it by balancing the nuclear
power between states. Pessimists want peace but they want it in long term by assuring that the
world has gotten rid of nuclear weapons. So, peace is the common ground on which a resolution
of proliferation issue can be resolved. A possible solution can be the spread of nuclear
technology only for limited uses or just to showcase that would satisfy the concern of optimists.
On the other hand, disarmament to a certain level for nuclear-armed states can satisfy the
demands of pessimists. Additionally, a committee under IAEA should be established in which
both optimists and pessimists will take part for policymaking process about the future of nuclear
Both stakeholders have their own opinions, goals, views, and beliefs. To understand the
issue and its nature, it is important to discuss both stakeholders separately. Then after finding the
history of the issue in detail. A common ground will be established and finally, on the basis of
that common ground, a workable solution can be devised that will enable both sides to
understand and agree with each other’s opinion. Both stakeholders will achieve their goals
mutually by cooperating with each other. Like any other global issue, the resolution of this issue
will also ultimately benefit the world population.
First, there are nuclear optimists these people believe in the total spread of nuclear
weapons. They give the example of democracy, as researchers say “democracies never fight with
each other because of their associated trade interest with each other. Similarly, nuclear states
would never go to war with other nuclear states. In this situation, a long-lasting peace will
establish. This peace is because of a phenomenon of the balance of power. The balance of power
is a situation in which opposite forces have equal forces and in case of an attack on one force by
other, other has the second-strike capability to destroy the first force (Busch, 218). That’s how it
When two South Asian states India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons of their
own. Indian General K. Sundarji said, “If a mutual minimum nuclear deterrence is in place, it
will act as a stabilizing factor… Possession of nuclear weapons would give Pakistan the
confidence to face a larger neighbor with security and honor… This confidence on the part of
Pakistan is to be welcomed as it is a positive asset for national sobriety and regional stability”
(Krepon, n.d). His statement clearly reflected the idea of nuclear optimists.
Nuclear optimists refer to the situation of Cuban Missile Crisis. A situation emerged in
October 1962. It was a 13-day confrontation between rivals United States and USSR. By the
time of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, both the United States and the Soviet Union had
developed the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile from a submerged submarine,
which completed the third leg of the nuclear triad weapons strategy necessary to fully implement
the MAD doctrine (Karl, 158). Having a three-branched nuclear capability eliminated the
possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack; this,
in turn, ensured the credible threat of a destroying retaliatory strike against the aggressor,
increasing a nation's nuclear deterrence.
The situation of Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved with the deterrence created by Mutual
Assured Destruction (MAD). This is the point of nuclear optimists. According to their opinion
world would be at stake if we disarm all states from nuclear devices. Former Vice President of
United States Al Gore was a nuclear optimist, he supported nuclear weapons by saying “I doubt
nuclear weapons will play a much larger role than it does now” (Adams, 2006). Nuclear weapons
are a need of this time in the view of optimists. They have a clear goal of arming states with
nuclear weapons so a state of deterrence can dominate in future that can assure long lasting
Opposite to nuclear optimists, pessimists believe that the spread of nuclear weapons
poses a number of severe threats to international peace including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism,
global and regional instability, constrained freedom of action, weakened alliances, and further
Second, the inevitable nuclear war pessimists believe there is a strong chance of nuclear
war if states continue to build nuclear weapons or the spread of nuclear technology continues at
the same rate. To date, nuclear weapons have only been used in warfare once. In 1945, the
United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a
close. Many analysts point to the sixty-five-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence
that nuclear weapons are unusable, but it would be naïve to think that nuclear weapons will never
be used again simply because they have not been used for ...
Purchase answer to see full