Annotation 4

Karen Frantz. (2007) The Female Nature: A Woman's Destiny? Journal of Humanist, Jul/Aug 2007, Vol. 67 , p4-6. Retrieved December 11,2008, from Academic Premier database.

Howard & Michael. (March 21,2005) Abortion: we need compassion, not dogma. Journal of New StatesmanVol. 134 Issue 4732, p6-6. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.




Both two articles regard that women should have the right of abortion. It can be questioned that are those who opposed to abortion really caring about women’s circumstances? Have they ever stood in women’s position? The first article takes partial-birth abortion for example. The Congress of United States prohibits partial-birth because they think that the procedure is inhumane. There is a Justice wrote about why abortion should be banned. I think it is ridiculous for them to suppose that woman would--and should--regret for having an abortion. Abortion violates woman’s motherhood. Therefore, the government should prohibit abortion.
The second article mentions about the “pro-life” campaigners. Their aim is to stop abortion completely. Even when the limit time of abortion is cut from 24 to 20 weeks, their concern is not to save the babies who are terminated between 20 and 24 weeks, but to use a lower limit as a stepping stone to an outright ban. Most of them are motivated by religious or philosophical purpose.

From the two articles, we can see that woman’s thoughts are usually to be neglect. The government, humanist, and the clergy intend to limit woman’s right to have an abortion. Regardless of each woman’s unique situation, those who oppose to abortion ignore what woman need. Why can they force woman to accept their arbitrary decision? When it comes to a woman’s set of circumstances, we should respect the necessity of woman to make such choice in the first place.


Revised version

Both two articles regard that women should have the right of abortion. It can be questioned that are those who opposed to abortion really caring about women’s circumstances? Have they ever stood in women’s position? The first article takes partial-birth abortion for example. The Congress of United States prohibits partial-birth because they think that the procedure is inhumane. There is a Justice wrote about why abortion should be banned. They suppose that woman would--and should--regret for having an abortion. Abortion violates woman’s motherhood. Therefore, the government should prohibit abortion.

The second article mentions about the “pro-life” campaigners. Their aim is to stop abortion completely. Even when the limit time of abortion is cut from 24 to 20 weeks, their concern is not to save the babies who are terminated between 20 and 24 weeks, but to use a lower limit as a stepping stone to an outright ban. Most of them are motivated by religious or philosophical purpose.

From the two articles, we can see that woman’s thoughts are usually to be neglected. The government, humanist, and the clergy intend to limit woman’s right to have an abortion. Regardless of each woman’s unique situation, what women need is usually ignored. Why can they force woman to accept their arbitrary decision? When it comes to a woman’s set of circumstances, we should respect the necessity of woman to make such choice in the first place. There is no denying that woman is the person who involved. However, most of the legislative commissioners who decided the policy are males. Did they really know what woman confront? Or they just limit woman’s rights by the slogan of humanism?