Abortion Papers Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

THis is a big mistake. Alfred Marshall is nto an economist: he is just a mathemarician. Raional to him means a number that can be expressed as a ratio. It ha sno conneciton with a human being reasonable. Marshall thinks that the ratio of marginal cost must be equal to the ratio of prices. This is purely hypothetical. In reality, the ratio of prices must be necessarily different form the ratio of marginal costs, in in opposite ways for the buyer and the seller.David Ricardo was an economist, unlike Marshall who was just a mathematician. Ricardo says that when the cost of x is compared between England and Portugal in terms of y, then for England, the ratio of costs is lower than that for Portugal, so that England will produce x and Portugal will not produce it, but buy it. England is said to have comparative cost advantage in x. This is sensible economics that reflects the real world. Marshall has no idea about the real world. Marshall has no ability to think that the marginal cost of x is not a single number: there are two marginal costs, one for England (seller) and one for Portugal (buyer). In economics, the one who incurs the higher comparative cost of production aborts production and resorts to purchasing. This idea is impossible for Marshall to grasp.My advice: please find book written by economists and not by mathematicians who are obsessed with ratio (rates of substitution). Here is a short list of economists: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Carl Menger, John M Keynes, F A Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Israel Kirzner, Wassily Leontief, Amartya Sen.Here is a list of mathematicians: Alfred Marshall, Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, Ken Arrow, Bob Lucas. Read Avinash Dixit, and you are guaranteed to know nothing of economics, and everything of rational naumbers.This is the key: a mathematician thinks of rational number ( a ratio) and not about a human at all. An economist thinks about reasonable people who buy and sell goods to improve their conditions of life: to buy things if the cost of purchase is lower than the cost of production, to sell things if the sale is profitable (the sale price is higher than marginal cost).To see what economics looks like (with math being used sensibly), see if you can find anything irrational in my paper:(PDF) Money in Market Clearing

The most convincing argument in favour of abortion?The one most convincing will be the one that resonates with you..It might be that you disagree with abortion, but still don’t think forcing a raped woman to carry the resulting pregnancy to term is right.Powerful confessions from women who became pregnant by their rapistIt may be that you think of abortion as “killing little babies”. Abortion Is Not MurderThey can pretend that fetuses are indistinguishable from babies, despite the fact that medical evidence tells us that fetuses cannot live unsupported, even with a respirator before 21 weeks. They can pretend that they feel pain, even though scientific consensus tells us that until at least 24 weeks, a fetus cannot feel anything like pain because they do not yet have the brain connections to do so.They can pretend that every fertilized egg is a human, ignoring the fact that the majority do not actually make it to birth and this does not seem to upset people overmuch.It may be that you think of abortion as “killing little babies”. Learning the facts about foetal development might cause you to think again.Stages Of Pregnancy & Fetal Development | Cleveland ClinicYou may think of abortion as “murdering the defenceless”, but might have a rethink regarding a mother of four existing children who will find another pregnancy life-threatening to herself, if denied an abortion.3 Abortion Stories, From Women Who Have ChildrenIt may be that you think abortion is horrendous, but that pregnancy, labour, and giving up a baby for adoption is easy… and you might have a rethink if you ever experience a pregnancy."I was 18 and a perfectly competent mother. I wanted to keep him," Helen, now 65 and a counsellor, says. "My social worker refused to offer any help other than to facilitate adoption. When Adam was two months old I had to leave the mother-and-baby home. I was told that if I had nowhere to go he must be placed for adoption. When I signed the papers not one official asked me if this is what I wanted."Forced adoption: the mothers fighting to find their lost childrenIt might be that you learn that in the absence of legal abortion, there will be illegal, backstreet abortion and outright infanticide… that women are desperate enough to do this.Infanticide was committed regularly in Ireland during the first half of the twentieth century. It was a crime that was closely associated with unmarried mothers. At least 199 women were charged with the murder or concealment of birth of their infants between 1922 and 1950.Unmarried mothers and infanticide in Ireland, 1900-1950 (from the downloadable pdf)The most high profile case relating to abortion came in November 1956, with the death of Helen O’Reilly. A few months before this case began, the body of O’Reilly had been found dumped on Hume Street, following a botched operation. O’Reilly’s story was heartbreaking, as she had already traveled to England attempting to procure a termination, but failing this had returned home desperate for assistance. She was a mother of six in financial difficulty, and separated from her husband.Dublin’s ‘Backstreet Abortionists’ (1930s – 1950s)It might be that the psychological impact of bearing and rearing an unwanted child are horrible for both child and mother.Children born after denied abortion fared worse than their peers in many respects. Psychiatric hospitalization was twice as common. Delinquency was twice as common, and criminal activity was three times higher. Registration for public drunkenness was 50 percent higher. The likelihood of receiving public assistance between ages of 16 and 21 years was six times higher and of having learning disorders two times higher. In all dimensions, children born after denied abortion fared less well than their peers.… a third of women denied abortion harbored long-term resentment of the unwanted child.Abortion Denied: Consequences for Mother and ChildIt seems to me that most of the ‘pro-life’ arguments are full of holes and supported by lies. Most arguments are emotional, not rational, and many of their claims are complete balderdash.My own experience:I’ve been called a ‘murderer’ (for having had an abortion) by a psychologist colleague who is impervious to the evidence, quotes flawed and discredited studies, and outright lies as she gets all her information from ‘pro-life’ websites. She refuses to look at the scientific studies. She believes that there should be more support for women with unintended or unwanted pregnancy, but fails to see that these supports need to exist FIRST. And there is no amount of supports that will help those to whom a pregnancy is dangerous, or do not want to bring a pregnancy to term due to the condition of the foetus.I’ve also been a lone parent for 25 years (I chose not to have an abortion this time), and although I earn a good wage now, I could not have survived financially if it weren’t for the practical and financial support of my parents; a support I could not offer my daughter if she were to find herself in my position. And supports that they really should not have to provide; not all parents can do so.Return to topic:There is no one most convincing argument, only the one that has meaning to you.Because, yes, abortion is the extinction of a potential life, a murder of a potential life. But that doesn’t equate to the murder of a child capable of life i.e. a full term healthy baby, which so many of the “pro-life” people think it is.For me, it’s bodily autonomy… but many of the ‘pro-life’ people don’t think this is at all convincing, due to the potential life trumping that of the existing mother.

"Should private practitioners be allowed to refuse to perform or refer abortions that would be for socioeconomic, non health reasons?"Absolutely."Healthcare" has traditionally been defined as treating illnesses and injuries, or aiding a natural process (such as prenatal care and childbirth).Abortions are usually NOT performed to treat an illness or injury, nor are they usually performed to aid a natural process.In fact, they are performed with the specific goal of killing a specific human being that is "burdensome" to someone.According to a report in the 'Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology', only 14 percent [1] of US OB-GYNs are willing to perform abortions.At least on paper, an 'American College of Nurse-Midwives' document allows for other medical personnel to decline abortion participation in non-emergency situations, owing to conscience. [2]If 100% of OB-GYN related medical personnel were required to kill prenatal children as "part of their jobs", how many of them would go into other specialties, leaving childbearing women in real danger from a severe shortage of providers?Even from the standpoint of those favoring legal abortion, would they feel safe knowing that doctors and other medical personnel were only *very grudgingly* performing a procedure that they abhor doing?Finally, how is allowing Conscientious Objectors in regards to medical-related killing any more extreme than allowing Conscientious Objectors in regards to killing in the military?Please also see my very much related thread--"Why is being pro-life judged in modern society?"References[1] Proportion Of OB-GYNs Offering Abortions May Be Lower ThanThought[2] Conscientious Refusal and the Profession of Midwifery [PDF format]