Abortion: yes or no??

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics faced by the world today, people hold different views about them some are in favour whilst some are against it.

  The meaning of abortion is quiet clear from its definition. As far as different views are concerned mostly all sects of Christianity are against the concept of abortion, there are humanitarian groups which are in favour of it, they have their own views which are totally different then the religious views, if we look at what different groups think we will find out that there is equal acceptance and opposition on the concept of abortion.

What is abortion?

Abortion can be defined as:

“Premature expulsion of the foetus from the womb either done by operation or by medication”.

"Is the removal of a fetus from the body of its host (a pregnant woman) which typically results in the death of the fetus".

What is the essential issue concerning abortion?

The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?

Are you against?

• Links

http://www.mrdata.net/books/9reasons.htm

MrData.Net Abortion Discussion Forum

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm

Anti-Abortion Arguments - Reasons Against Abortion

argument against abortion- outlines against abortion, budhists

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Arguments against abortion- Women's

PLATAFORMA ALGARVE PELA VIDA- 'Abortion is against every instinct

Do you agree?

• Links

Abortion is Pro Life

Pro-Abortion

Pro-Choice Abortion

Abortion Pro Choice

Abortion is pro-life; anti-abortion is anti-life and anti-capitalist

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm

 

Are you crazy...You think this can change?

Violence can be:

- self-directed violence;
- collective violence;
- interpersonal violence;

Interpersonal violence can be:

- Family and intimate partner violence – that is,
violence largely between family members and
intimate partners, usually, though not exclusively,
taking place in the home.
- Community violence – violence between
individuals who are unrelated, and who may
or may not know each other, generally taking
place outside the home.

Violent acts can be:

- physical;
- sexual;
- psychological;
- involving deprivation or neglect.

Each year, over 1.6 million people worldwide lose their lives to violence. Violence is among the leading causes of death for people aged 15-44 years worldwide.

For every person who dies as a result of violence, many more are injured and suffer from a range of sexual, physical, mental health and reproductive problems.

Moreover, violence places a massive burden on national economies, costing countries billions each year in health care, law enforcement and lost productivity.

WHO works with partners to prevent violence through scientifically credible strategies that are conceived and implemented in relation to causes at the levels of the individual, family, community and society.

Violence against children is a major risk factor for psychiatric disorders and suicide, and has lifelong sequelae including anxiety disorders, depression, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, aggression and violence towards others, risky sexual behaviours and post traumatic stress disorders.

So, preventing violence against children contributes is a way to prevent a much broader range of noncommunicable diseases.

Preventing violence: a guide to implementing the recommendations of the World report on violence and health was published with the support of the Government of Belgium, and thanks to input from violence prevention practitioners worldwide.

This document focuses the first six recommendations, that are:

• Increasing the capacity for collecting data on violence.
• Researching violence – its causes, consequences and prevention.
• Promoting the primary prevention of violence.
• Promoting gender and social equality and equity to prevent violence.
• Strengthening care and support services for victims.
• Bringing it all together – developing a national action plan of action.

Poverty and AIDS

Poverty and HIV Infection

The characteristics of the poor are well known as also are some of the causal factors at work which contribute to a "culture of poverty" - the fact that the children of the poor often become the poor of succeeding generations.

Poverty is associated with weak endowments of human and financial resources, such as low levels of education with associated low levels of literacy and few marketable skills, generally poor health status and low labour productivity as a result. An aspect of the poor health status of the poor is the existence amongst many Africans of undiagnosed and untreated STDs which is now recognised as a very significant co-factor in the transmission of HIV.

Poor households typically have few if any financial or other assets and are often politically and socially marginalised. These conditions of social exclusion increase the problems of reaching these populations through programmes aimed at changing sexual and other behaviours.

It is not at all surprising in these circumstances that the poor adopt behaviours which expose them to HIV infection. It is not simply that IEC activities are unlikely to reach the poor (which is too often the case) but that such messages are often irrelevant and inoperable given the reality of their lives.

Even if the poor understood what they are being urged to do it is rarely the case that they have either the incentive or the resources to adopt the recommended behaviours. Indeed to take the long-view in sexual or other behaviours is antithetical to the condition of being poor.

For the poor it is the here and now that matters, and policies and programmes that recommend deferral of gratification will, and do, fall on deaf ears.

Even more fundamental to the condition of poverty is social and political exclusion. So HIV-specific programmes are neglectful of the interests of the poor and are rarely if ever related to their needs, and also unfortunately are other non-HIV related programme activities - such as those relating to agriculture and credit. More generally it is the absence of effective programmes aimed at sustainable livelihoods which limit the possibilities of changing the socio-economic conditions of the poor.

But unless the reality of the lives of the poor are changed they will persist with behaviours which expose them to HIV infection (and all the consequences of this for themselves and their families).

Poor families have a reduced capacity to deal with the effects of morbidity and mortality than do richer ones for very obvious reasons. These include the absence of savings and other assets which can cushion the impact of illness and death.

The poor are already on the margins of survival and thus are also unable to deal with the consequent health and other costs. These include the costs of drugs when available to treat opportunistic infections, transport costs to health centres, reduced household productivity through illness and diversion of labour to caring roles, losses of employment through illness and job discrimination, funeral and related costs, and so on.

In the longer term such poor households never recover even their initial level of living as their capacity is reduced through the losses of productive family members through death and through migration, and through the sales of any productive assets they once possessed. A true process of immiseration is now observable in many parts of Africa.

The HIV epidemic has its origins in African poverty and unless and until poverty is reduced there will be little progress either with reducing transmission of the virus or an enhanced capacity to cope with its socio-economic consequences.

It follows that sustained human development is essential for any effective response to the epidemic in Africa. A conclusion that has yet to permeate approaches to the epidemic not only in Africa but more or less everywhere. While the HIV epidemic makes sustained human development more and more unattainable, and actually adds to poverty, it also destroys the human resource capacities essential for an effective response.

Herein lies the problem: how to achieve the sustainable development essential for an effective response to the epidemic under conditions where the epidemic is destructive of the capacities essential for the response. Simple answers to this problem do not exist, but at least recognition of its existence is a step towards its solution. The next step has to be the development of policies and programmes that address the inter-relationships between poverty and development and to actually put in place those activities that can make a difference for development outcomes.

Central to these activities are programmes that address poverty today so as to facilitate future socio-economic development tomorrow. For unless the intergenerational effects of HIV are addressed now then it is optimistic in the extreme to assume that Africa will become a pole of development in succeeding decades.