The pro-choice and women's rights movement of the late 20th century was founded because of inadequate medical care for women, which often led to infection or death due to a poorly performed illegal abortion. The rhetoric employed by the Pro-Choice movement to combat widespread and undue government interference with personal liberties is based on several arguments: the value-based argument, arguing that the health and well-being of the mother of a fetus is always the concern main – overcoming the needs of the unborn fetus; the quantity argument, since there is tremendous support for the pro-choice movement and its provision that some abortions are morally acceptable; and the quality-based argument that women were entitled to doctor-sanctioned abortions rather than clandestine, “coat hanger” abortions. Women's right to choose what happens to their bodies, the need for viable healthcare options, and the moral battle between giving women complete freedom of their bodies and choosing the fate of a being who has yet to be born, and as such cannot being said to be dead or alive played an important role in the rhetorical strategies employed by the Pro-Choice movement in the 1980s. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The value argument is one of the main rhetorical devices used by the Pro-Choice movement. The argument for value places the mother's health as the highest priority, and her well-being and personal decisions are more important than the interests of the unborn fetus growing inside the woman. According to a study conducted in Romania on the public health consequences of banning abortion by Stephenson, Wagner, Badea and Serbanescu, “When access to safe abortion was introduced in a country, maternal mortality decreased” ( 1328). This topic prioritizes saving lives; and safe and legal abortion as an option has been shown to result in a significant reduction in the mortality rate observed in pregnant women. On the other hand, without access to safe alternatives, these women could likely have contracted an infection or died after an impromptu abortion in a dark alley. Any pregnant woman suffering from life-threatening, pregnancy-related complications should be given the right to seek appropriate medical care that considers her life more precious than that of the fetus growing inside her, and the wide range of medical treatments – up to and including abortion, they must be available to the woman, whatever effect it may have on the possible person in formation. In countries where safe abortion options are available to the public, the maternal mortality rate has been observed to decrease significantly. In contrast, Romania's abortion ban had a predictably disappointing outcome; “Before the 1966 law came into force, the maternal mortality rate in Romania was similar to that of other Eastern European countries. Subsequently, abortion-related maternal mortality increased to a level 10 times higher than that of any other European country” (Stephenson, Wagner, Badea, and Surbanescu 1329). According to this study conducted in Romania, access to safe abortion procedures directly affects the maternal mortality rate and the value of the mother's health is the top priority according to pro-choice advocates using the Value Argument. A related issue in many of these health-related abortions is the question of whether thesituation allows an abortion to become morally permissible. The Quantity Argument concerns the realm of dimensions; big versus small, less versus more and the like. Proponents of the Pro-Choice agenda argue that there is widespread support for abortion in morally permissible circumstances, and a study titled “Canadian Attitudes on Abortion,” by Boyd and Gillieson, provided the following information: In June 1965, 72% of those interviewed approved of abortions performed for the health of the mother. This study goes on to find similar results in the mid-1970s, with high acceptance rates for abortions in general – and hovering around 80% acceptance when the mother's health was endangered. This statement is echoed by Stewart, Smith and Denton Jr., in “Persuasion and Social Movements” when the book states that the pro-choice movement “has the 'overwhelming support' of the 'vast majority' of Americans... polls offer which show that four out of five Americans… support the pro-choice position that “there are situations in which abortion can be a moral alternative” (276). “Persuasion and Social Movements” goes on to discuss pro-choice marches, acceptance statistics, and reinforces the claim that pro-choice is the large majority, calling pro-life supporters “a small, fanatical minority” (Stewart, Smith , Denton Jr. 277). Pro-choice rhetoric emphasizes the value of the mother and her health, the moral permissibility of some abortions, the widespread belief that abortion is not intrinsically immoral, all of which help support the argument that women should intrinsically have high quality medical care available. them so that they can have the freedom to make their own choice. The Quality Argument is the argument for good medical facilities and the luxury of making personal health decisions without undue interference from anyone, especially the government. There are several benefits to high-quality healthcare facilities that can perform abortions. In a study on the implementation of high-quality abortion facilities in Nepal, Samandari finds that “abortion complications at essential obstetric care facilities have decreased significantly to 28% compared to 54% of all complications in 1998 ” (7). In addition to a substantial drop in maternal mortality rates, Nepal has also seen an increase in people seeking treatment, as locals are now safe from prison thanks to recent legal reforms. The arguments of pro-lifers often refer to an issue known as the “partial birth” issue. This topic refers to fetuses that are aborted within the third trimester of development, rather than within the first two trimesters as required by law. However, those who argue that abortion should be banned because of third trimester abortions are overlooking the facts and focusing directly on the disgusting truth that some people are okay with killing a baby for their own convenience, but Stewart , Smith and Denton Jr. tell us that of all abortions, “only 1.5 percent after the first 21 weeks. “On the rare occasions when women abort in the third trimester, they do so because their fetuses have serious or fatal abnormalities or because the pregnancy is life-threatening” (272). This study was conducted in 2006, demonstrating that high-quality abortion facilities made available to the general population resulted in lower mortality rates, lower rates of abortion and non-abortion-related complications, and a very low rate of illegal abortions in third quarter. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a.