Abortion has, and will continue to be a constant debate of right and wrong. The moral and social aspects of the issue have been in conflict since the 1950's. The conflict of the rights of the women compared to the rights of the child cannot easily be solved due to the complexity of the issue. Many have argued that a woman should have complete control over her own body. The conflict with this is that many believe that the woman's morals may not be present in her decision. The other side of the argument is based on the rights of the child. Most people on this side believe that the child's life should be treated like everyone else's. This means that if the life is taken, the taker should be considered a murderer. Abortion should be allowed, as long as it is not abused and used as a birth control.
             Female bodies are designed to bear offspring, unless disrupted by physical malfunction or human intervention (Podell). However, women have been attempting to control this function since the 1950's (Podell). Abortion has been used as a birth control, but it should not be if women hope to persuade others to keep it legal. The right to control reproduction is argued to be equivalent to free speech and equality (Podell). To project this idea, Cleo Kocol wrote a book describing abortion as "just one of many medical procedures." A problem arrives when people question the morality, and
             competency, of the women choosing this procedure. One question that arises from the whole issue: Are women working towards a controlled choice, or an accommodated one (Podell)?
             A controlled choice is not really a choice. For example, we can choose to eat at any restaurant that we want. There is no government official or law prohibiting us from eating at a certain restaurant. That freedom is what separates a choice from a decision (Pojman). We decide between options presented to us, where as we choose our own...