The following question consists of a statement and arguments I and II. Choose the best option :

Statement:
Should there be a compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other ?

Argument I :
No, this is an intrusion to the privacy of an individual and hence cannot be tolerated.

Argument II :
Yes, this will substantially reduce the risk of giving birth to children with serious ailments.

• Argument I raises a valid concern about individual privacy, but the intrusion into privacy is not necessarily absolute. In public health matters, certain individual rights can be balanced against the potential benefits to society. For example, medical checks before marriage could prevent serious health risks for future children, which could be seen as a societal benefit that outweighs individual privacy concerns in this specific context.
• Argument II is stronger because it addresses a clear, tangible benefit: reducing the risk of giving birth to children with serious health conditions. This has direct positive implications for public health and the well-being of families and future generations. The argument is grounded in a practical, preventive approach that could have significant health benefits, making it a more compelling reason for the compulsory medical examination.

Therefore, Argument II is stronger because it presents a clear, socially beneficial reason for why compulsory medical examinations might be necessary, with long-term health benefits, whereas Argument I is more abstract and focused on individual rights without addressing the potential public health advantages.