iThink

After reading countless articles on the Web, it is now time for me to compose my own persuasive essay.  To read my narrowed topic, please click here.  Here are four sources that I will use to compose my paper.

• “Birth Control.” Catholic Answers. 10 Aug 2004. Catholic Answers. 1 Nov 2007 <http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp>.
• “Mifeprex (mifepristone) Information.” Food and Drug Administration. 29 Aug 2007. Food and Drug Administration. 1 Nov 2007 <http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/>.
• “Legislators want ban on RU486.” Theology Online Forums. 3 Feb 2006. Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.. 1 Nov 2007 <http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25496.html>.
• Wyser-Pratte, Renee. “Protection of RU-486.” Oregon Law Review. 2000. University of Oregon. 1 Nov 2007 <http://www.law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/archives/79/79olr1121.pdf>.

Summary:  The video, a Mad Science production, goes through the graphic details of abortion procedures.  The clip is explained by Carol Everett, president of Life Network in Dallas.  Now a pro-life advocate, Everett once owned and operated abortion clinics for over six years.  She begins by providing detailed definitions and explanations of female and fetus body parts, including the uterine wall and amniotic fluid, and she explains the trimesters of pregnancy.  Abortion is the “destruction and removal of a living baby from the mother’s womb.”  She also explains the development of a fetus and the procedures that are used depending upon what stage in development the baby is.

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Summary:  Patrik Jonsson, a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor, analyzes this highly debated issue:  should a woman considering an abortion be offered a viewing of an ultrasound image of her developing fetus?  He beings by presenting two South Carolina women, both considering an abortion, who were shown an image of their fetuses.  One proceeded with her abortion and opposes a law requiring women to be offered a picture of their fetuses.  The other, after seeing the “fuzzy ultrasound picture” changed her mind and would support such a bill.  10 states have approved a “witness to the womb” law.  Supporters say it provides imperative information, while opponents saw such requirements are “medically unnecessary.”  According to Jonsson, the law, backed by abortion opponents, is intended to encourage pregnancies.  However, the law may have “profound implications” for women’s rights. 

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Thomas Clark, director of the Center for Naturalism, beings by asking difficult, thought-provoking questions regarding the abortion debate.  He acknowledges that often, anti-abortion arguments ground themselves in religious soil.  However, he states, in the United States, “only secular claims…should be allowed,” due to the First Amendment, which includes an indirect statement establishing the separation of church and state.  Pro-life advocates claim that an embryo is a person who is “owed the full set of rights under the Constitution.”  On the other hand, pro-choice advocates insist that an embryo does not “merit equal protection.”  Clark states an interesting proposition:  “We are hard-wired to be protective of beings that manifest sentience and self-interest, especially those close to us and those of our species.” 

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and current Republican presidential candidate, recently participated in a televised presidential debate sponsored by Fox News Channel. Responding to a question about his stance on abortion, he staunchly defended his position.  Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, believes that life beings at conception and that people should protect it until its natural end. 

__(’Read the rest of this entry »’)