Annotation
Abortion and psychology. May 17, 2007. Washington Times
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/17/20070517-100743-6250r/>
In the article, I could see some points about anti-abortion. The Supreme Court's decide to ban partial-birth abortion. In other words, it strikes the general availability of abortion: the potential negative mental-health consequences for women who carry a child to term. Which one are more important, pro-choice and pro-life camps?
Pro-choice advocates historically have counted on the support of the powerful American Psychological Association. In a well-designed longitudinal study, Dr. Fergusson found abortion was associated with depression and other negative mental-health outcomes.
Dr. MacNair says she is a "pro-life feminist" who "sees all violence as connected and wrong, with abortion being one kind of violence." Dr. Russo first asserted the evidence on mental-health outcomes was of clinical interest but had no bearing on abortion as a civil right. In other words, no matter what the consequences, abortion should be legal.
In my opinion, I think these researchers and law-makers don’t take a very significant reason into consideration. That is babies’ rights of their own right. Women rights seems to be seen much important in their argument, but I think children who will go to be birth can’t still be forgotten, especially the late-terms abortion.
Revise:
Abortion and psychology. (May 17, 2007) News report of Washington Times website. Retrieved October 25, 2008,from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/17/20070517-100743-6250r/
In original one, both sides in abortion topic fight against each other by using scientific research. The group who argue for abortion says that it would not impact women psychology mental health. According to Dr. Fergusson, well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that the risk of psychological harm is low. What’s more, Dr. Nancy Russo, long-time APA luminary and defender of abortion rights mentions: no matter what the consequences, abortion should be legal. However, Dr. MacNair says she is a "pro-life feminist" who "sees all violence as connected and wrong, with abortion being one kind of violence." The anti-group criticizes the justice of the research.
Interestingly, both of different views work the same office- APA ( In the abortion debate, pro-choice advocates historically have counted on the support of the powerful American Psychological Association.)
The whole article mentions about the women’s right and it “seems” to be the primary part to legalize the abortion. In the beginning of the article, it says that The Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion. In other words, it strikes the general availability of abortion. Women rights are repeating over again and again. But, what about the unborn babies? Should they have equal rights with women? Why do women have the power to decide the lives of “others”? Or why do government dare to advocate abortion? Though, the abortion group may argue that the mental health of women after abortion does’t very bad as the previous study mentions. In my view, they don’t view the unborn babies as lives, rather than an “object”. Does it answer the right of every creature?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You also make a complete discussion about the original article. I agree with you that the original concept of writing composition can not be ignored too. Writing is a process sometimes also time-consuming; however, it is must.
Now that your paper is talking about abortion, I think that you should point out more about such kinds of issues in the article. Furthermore, you mention "the author" twice as the beginning of two sentences, I think that you probably want to change the way of expressing your idea so that it may make your article vividly.
Post a Comment