Christine Girl on Fire Reed March 15, It is my greatest frustration as a teacher. Reply Link Me me February 2,7:
Brandon is a RN and the epitome of a good old fashioned southern boy. Meaning that he's gay, an atheist and a liberal democrat.
The personhood movement has gained a foothold among anti-abortion activists who are looking to pass laws that define embryos as people with full rights. Personhood advocates aim to outlaw all abortions, along with in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem-cell research, and emergency contraception.
Granting embryos personhood would also mean that someone who killed a pregnant woman at any stage in her pregnancy would be at risk of prosecution for a double homicide. An accidental car accident could put you at risk for vehicular homicide if you caused a miscarriage. The biggest empirical problem with the view that personhood begins at conception is the scientific fact that a large percentage of embryos lack the capacity, under any circumstances, to become human beings.
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Studies show that anywhere from 10 to 25 percent of all clinically recognized pregnancies meaning that an embryo has implanted end in miscarriage, depending in part on the age of the woman.
But they do show that many embryos that result from conception—indeed, the majority of them—lack the capacity to become living human beings. They do not produce disabled humans. They cannot produce any sort of human life. Science and medicine know this. They are simply too intimidated to say so.
In its moral zeal, the personhood movement makes a huge mistake when it tries to legislate a starting point for human life that is inconsistent with biology.
And scientists are making an inexcusable blunder not to point out factual errors by those engaged in the argument about when life begins. Human life is very difficult to start. More often than not, it fails post conception.
To argue that personhood begins at conception is to reach for a moral stance that the facts simply do not support. There is mounds of evidence that shows that the party itself is anything but pro-life or even pro-quality-of-life.
I, personally, think the Anti-Choice is more appropriate. There is no aspect of life they are promoting the refusal to allow a woman to make a choice regarding her own body.
Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they are clearly pro-fetus. A woman in Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarriage. How are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do?
If controlling what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent. A lot of the arguments that fuel the anti-abortion debate are religious in nature.
Since not everyone follows the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Rick Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion.
Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion, he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women.
Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing!
Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. As ofpolls of evangelical Christian leaders demonstrated many supported continuing the war in Iraq. So at least as far as the U. But the wing of a movement that feels comfortable using force and threats to achieve their ends is inseparable from it.
Carlin makes one final assertion in his set: Simple as it gets. More recently, a survey concluded participants who agreed with sexist statements about women were much more likely to hold anti-abortion views — including both people with paternalistic views toward women and outright misogynists.
Arguments like this reduce the movement to simply being pro-birth, and nothing more. I recall an occasion during one of the many, many, many republican debates during the last primary season.Shlesinger's main argument for abortion can be found on pages eight and nine: we do not live in an ideal world, where men and women share equal responsibility for caring for a child, and there are diseases like the Zika virus, so women need contraception, including access to safe abortions (yes, she seems to believe abortion is a form of.
Jul 20, · This leads some people to claim is that it is unethical to ban abortion because doing so denies freedom of choice to women and forces 'the unwilling to bear the unwanted'.
A counter-argument is an argument opposed to your thesis, or part of your thesis. It expresses the view of a person who disagrees with your position. Then you are faced with a choice: Do you abandon your thesis and adopt the counter-argument as your position? This is because there has to be a rebuttal paragraph after the counter.
1. American women have unreasonable standards. They expect you to have a big house in the suburbs and a salary of at least , dollars from a . It’s that argument that has drawn considerable fire from Republicans, because Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used it to affirm that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional back in Oct 10, · Women saved more than $ billion in because of this change.
“From a societal perspective, contraception saves health care dollars,” Dr. Peipert said.