In “Abortion Increases Breast Cancer Risk” by Angela Lanfranchi is about how abortion has been linked to increasing the risk of breast cancer. For women the normal breast development is from her conception through birth of a child. If a women gets an abortion then she would be decreasing her chances of developing the breast. During pregnancy is the “susceptibility window” when women are most vulnerable to carcinogens. Carcinogen is a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissues. Carcinogenic effects the predominant female sex steroid in the breast. Getting an abortion opens up a window and causes more of a chance for a women to get breast cancer. 

            The author is unbiased throughout the article and she writes it in an informative style. The article was written in 2016 and it still a relevant topic today. The evidence provided is from books and periodicals. 

            The article is very useful because it gives you more information on why not to get an abortion. Knowing the risk that abortion can cause may change people’s mind on getting an abortion. This article will help in the opposing view point by comparing the different research and theories by different people. 

 

Sydney Lewis

            

            In the article of “Gays and Lesbians Should Not Be Allowed to Adopt” they argue so that gays and lesbians should not be able to adopt. Children that are raised by same sex parents VS those raised by opposite sex parents to the fact that the sex of the parents or the child or both makes a difference in a child’s development. Another reasons why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to adopt because gay’s, lesbians, bisexual young people are increased risk of mental health problems, with these associations being evident to multiple disorders and suicidal behaviors. The data suggest that family headed by one male and one female who are married to each other have beneficial outcomes for children they adopt, taking into account proper screening, preparation, and support for the family.

            The author was biasd against same sex marriage, the author was a reliable source who provided a lot of information towards the main idea. The author was very informing with straight towards the point. The author provided information about the topic with facts, however the facts were not that reliable because it wasn’t about facts around this time. 

Johnson, Douglas. "Abortions Should Be Restricted to Before Twenty Weeks Gestation." Abortion, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010102439/OVIC?u=bcps&xid=35fba9d7. Accessed 21 Feb. 2018. Originally published as "Statement by Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee, On Pro-Life Priorities for 2012," National Right to Life Committee, 23 Jan. 2012.

 

         In the Article by Douglas Johnson, He is trying to persuade the reader that Abortions should be restricted to before 20 weeks Gestation.  By the beginning of the sixth month (if not well earlier), the fetus is capable of experiencing excruciating pain. Infants born as early as 23 or 24 weeks can survive in neonatal intensive care units. Which means the fetus is very well developed and capable of feeling. Pro Abortion advocates want you to believe an unborn baby who is at the same stage of development experience’s no discomfort as its arms and legs are being twisted off.

             Douglas Johnson is the Legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. He is very biased that abortion should be restricted to before 20 weeks. He uses a very passionate argumentative tone to convey his point that abortion shouldn’t be allowed after a certain point. This article was from 2014 but is still a huge issue today. All the evidence in the article was from the District Of Columbia Bill, and Researchers.

              This article is relevant to my argument because it helped me add some details and facts to better my argument. This also provides support to my research. This will help me refute the opposing side of my argument.

Abaluck, Jason. "Late-Term Abortions Should Not Be Banned." The Abortion Controversy, edited by Emma Bernay, Greenhaven Press, 2007. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010034242/OVIC?u=bcps&xid=3b52ac5a. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018. Originally published as "Partial Truths: The Partial-birth Abortion Ban Violates Women's Rights," Perspective, Harvard Liberal Monthly Magazine, Nov. 2003.

 

                In the Article by Jason Abaluck, he is trying to persuade a reader that late term abortions should not be banned. If a mother has a right to choose abortion in the first place she has the right to choose the safest method regardless of termination of the fetus inside or outside the uterus. A Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, is not concerned with protecting the interests and rights of pregnant women.  “A Fetus cannot override a women’s rights”, is a bill that is not designed to serve the interests of pregnant mothers. The abortion ban passed by Congress is certainly not for the benefit of women, and it fails to establish a reasonable standard to distinguish between permissible and impermissible abortions. Those who voted for it likely know it is unconstitutional.

                  Jason Abaluck is very biased that late abortion should not be banned. The style of his article is argumentative because he’s arguing two sides of the spectrum and how his biased opinion is better than the other side. This isn’t a recent article it was written in 2007. Abaluck provides a lot of bills that support his argument and he also provides different procedures.

                    This article is relevant to my argument because it helps me refute my argument to Abaluck’s. His article also helped me see both sides of the argument whether Abortion should or should not be banned after a certain period of time.

 

Singer, Peter. "The Choice of a Pregnant Woman Always Outweighs the Life of a Fetus." Ethics, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010431266/OVIC?u=bcps&xid=a1b93f4f. Accessed 27 Feb. 2018. Originally published as "The Real Abortion Tragedy," www.project-syndicate.org, 13 Aug. 2012.

            The article “The Choice of a Pregnant Woman Always Outweighs the Life of a Fetus” is about how women have the right to choose whether to get an abortion or not and they should not have that right taken from them. There are different circumstances where it is right and when it is wrong. There was a pregnant teenager who had leukemia and had to delay her chemotherapy treatment because it would affect her pregnancy.  Restricting legal abortion access can lead to poor women to get an abortion from an unsafe source. If the baby is going to affect the health of a women, they should be allowed to get one if they choose if their life is at stake.

            The author, Peter Singer, does not seem to be biased on the topic. The article is informative and gives facts and real world situations to explain the topic.  The article was written in 2015 and is still a relevant argument today. The types of evidence provided are from books, periodicals, and real world people. 

            This article is useful because it give another perspective on abortion and helps people see the pros and cons for it. The article will be useful in my argument because I plan to have both sides in my paper.