I have read many opinions about abortion and pro —”human” — life. I say this because people are not pro-life — they are fighting just for human life. Those people will put a suffering animal to sleep, but won’t allow human beings to end their own suffering. If we are so superior, then why can’t we choose whether or not we want to live or die?

That brings me to my point — not having a choice. I agree that it is unfair for any human not to be able to choose what happens to his or her life. Unfortunately, we live in a world that governs what we can or cannot do.

We have to wear seat belts, we have to wear helmets, and we have to follow other laws that save our lives. I’m fine with preserving human life, but either way, someone loses a choice.

This is a debate that won’t ever have a clear victor. I call for a compromise. It will make both sides happy. If you get rid of abortion, pay the woman to have the child.

What is a human life worth? A million dollars, 2 million? I think that is fair. Her life is disrupted for about one year, and I think that is fair compensation to receive in order to carry, support and give birth to an unwanted child.

Let her choose to give it up for adoption so loving parents can care for it, but pay her regardless of her choice later, because you are forcing her to make the choice to have the child.

If you take away the choice from the woman, you must compensate her for doing so. The other way can have no compensation; you can’t give compensation to the non-living.

The argument is that all life is equal. Anti-abortionists need to consider the life of the woman, while abortion rights proponents need to consider the organism that may turn into a life.

I think compensation is the best way to solve this debate. I’m just tired of one side taking for granted the choice of the other.

Matthew Peretz

Senior

Chemistry