Enough About You-Chemia

Original paragraph:

Money seems to have a big role in our society; you can’t do much or get far if you don’t have any. Money is valuable in different ways, even when you don’t see it physically. In today’s society you must have faith in the government and in the banking system that your money is being handled in the proper manner; if not, then you would have to hide all of your money under your mattress or around your house. I have no clue what happens in the banks, or how they take care of your money. I always thought money was simple; you either have some or you don’t—that’s it. However, being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar. You don’t actually see your money being transferred. When you get paid, you aren’t handed cash, you don’t receive a physical check, the money’s all directly transferred to your bank account, and you just have to trust that you got more money.


Money seems to have a big role in our society; we cannot do much without it. Even when it is physically unavailable, money is still valuable. In today’s society, we rely on the government and the banking system to handle our money. Otherwise, our money would have to be hidden under a mattress or other particular places at home. It is uncertain for us to know how our money is managed in banks or if it is safe there. I used to perceive the nature of money as simple; some people have money while others do not. Being introduced to this assignment, the Yap Fei, US gold, French francs, Brazilian cruzeros, and debit accounts now seem similar. When we get paid, money is directly transferred into our bank accounts instead of receiving cash or physical checks. The electronic transfer of our money is a procedure that forces us to have faith in it.

Rebuttal- Chemia


Restrictive Abortion Laws, More of a Hindrance Than a Help


Restrictive abortion laws, a solution that fails to exterminate its principal target and causes the appearance of monstrous phenomena in society. Due to its controversial nature, abortion has divided society in terms of differences of opinion. Many people who are against abortion have pointed out that abortion violates the right to life and that such practice should be strictly prohibited under all circumstances in order to protect the life of the unborn child. Different from common belief, the legalization of abortion does not increase abortion rates. Instead, it prevents women from accessing to clandestine procedures that expose them to death. Even when restrictive abortion laws exist, innumerable unsafe abortions are performed regardless of their legal and hygienic settings. Such laws fail to protect human life and causes a tacit form of discrimination in which women who live in poor communities are more likely to die as a result of unsafe abortion.

Some people believe that restrictive abortion laws are the most effective solution to evade abortion practices and to protect the right to life. For others, restrictive abortion laws are ineffective political and social regulations that fail to protect human life and are  unable of preventing women from accessing abortion regardless of their legal status. In the article “Why is abortion immoral,” Don Marquis, a professor of philosophy at the University of Kansas, states that abortion is a pure representation of murder in which the person who takes away the life of the unborn child is brutalized. For him and many others, the legalization of abortion causes an immoral situation in which human life is devaluated. If the main objective of establishing restrictive abortion laws is to protect human life, it is necessary to take into account not only the life of the unborn child, but also the life of the mother. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), restrictive abortion laws lead women to access clandestine abortion. Around 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, resulting in approximately 80,000 maternal deaths. Restrictive abortions laws fail to represent ethics and morality because of their abstract nature of putting in danger women’s lives.  The fact that the maternal mortality resulting from unsafe abortion is somehow an implicit consequence of restrictive abortion laws mean that these laws kills millions of women every year. This phenomenon must stop being invisible to society and must be taken into account when adopting restrictive abortion laws.  It is a matter of comprehending that establishing restrictive abortion laws increases the exposure of women to death during clandestine procedures.

It is undeniable that the ideal situation would be that abortion was part of fantasy. However, these situations occur in real life even if restrictive abortion laws exist. According to Susana Lerner and Agnès Guillaume, approximately 19 million unsafe abortions were carried out outside the legal system in the 2000’s. Among these clandestine procedures, it is estimated that about 4 million induced abortions were performed in Latin American countries, regions that present the highest abortion rates and where restrictive abortion laws are more severe. Restrictive abortions laws do not ensure the disappearance of abortion practices in society. It is estimated that abortion rates in Chile, Argentina, and Peru, countries where abortion is severely penalized, indicate that about 50 abortions are carried out for every one thousand pregnant women. At the same time, the abortion rates corresponding to countries with more liberal abortion laws, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, show that for every one thousand women in pregnancy, about 10, or less, abortions are performed. The problem is whether the solution proposed, the establishment of restrictive abortion laws, successfully prevents abortions from happening or not. If the criminalization of abortion is  useless as a preventive mechanism and it is also the cause of additional deaths, restrictive abortion laws are not worth. To picture how ineffective restrictive abortion laws are, it is necessary to get rid of the misconception that liberalizing abortion laws instantly results in increasements in abortion rates.

Criminalization of abortion generates outrageous situations where women risk their lives accessing clandestine procedures and even performing self-induced abortion. Because there are no indications that abortion rates decreases with the establishment of restrictive abortion laws,  it is more likely that unsafe abortion rates will increase exposing women to death, especially those who belong to the lower social classes. Making abortion illegal creates an implicit situation of social injustice where women who belong to the highest social classes are more likely to access safe abortions because they can afford these procedures regardless of their legal status. A study conducted in the poorest rural areas of Nigeria, Asia, and Latin America indicates that about 73% of women who are part of the most marginalized communities practice self-induced abortions or obtain abortions from non-professional medical personnel. In their state of desperation to end unwanted pregnancies, many women belonging to poor communities are even willing to poison themselves. Lisa Haddad and Nawal Nour state, “Unsafe abortion methods include drinking toxic fluids such as turpentine, bleach, or drinkable beverages mixed with livestock manure.” Being this the case, in its attempt to protect and highlight the value of human life, restrictive abortion laws in fact are putting life itself at risk and creating a space of economic exclusion in which the lives of low-income women seem to be less valuable than the lives of those who belong to high socio-economic classes.


Don Marquis (1989).”Why abortion is immoral,” The Journal of Philosophy. pp. 183-202. Retrieved from http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf

Haddad LB, Nour NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstetric Gynecol. 2009;2(2):122

Lerner, S., & Guillaume, A. (n.d.). Las adversas consecuencias de la legislación restrictiva sobre el aborto: Argumentos y evidencias empíricas en la literatura latinoamericana.

World Health Organization (WHO), (1998), Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality, Ginebra, WHO.

Warriner IK and Shah IH, eds., Preventing Unsafe Abortion and its Consequences: Priorities for Research and Action, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.




Robusts Verbs- Chemia


In Vancouver, heroin addicts  break into cars, rob homes, and steal others’ properties to support their addiction.  The “free heroin for addicts” program provides free and sanitary doses of heroin to drug addicts to safely satisfy their addiction. Even though this program do not prevent them from using drugs, it reduces crime rates and reduces the costs of unsanitary substance abuse to healthcare systems.

Causal- Chemia

If the purpose of restrictive abortion laws is to protect life, something might not be working as it was expected. For centuries, many women who have the will to terminate their pregnancy, regardless of their motives, have desperately looked for, and consequently found a variety of resources that allow them to access procedures that satisfy their needs. The degree of difficulty for women who access this type of procedures depends on different variables such as the legislative system that surrounds them, the religious and social influence on them, and especially the socio-economic class in which they belong to. Unfortunately, socio-economic status ends up being a great determinant to access safe abortion. Restrictive abortion laws are abstract forms of social injustice themselves that degrades the integrity of women by putting their lives in the market, one in which people belonging to high social classes are more likely to have access to it.

It is understandable that some countries around the world, especially Latin American countries, adopt restrictive abortion laws in an attempt to reduce abortion rates. However, it seems that it is still necessary to take into account some of the negative effects triggered by these laws that  end up being excluded from the whole picture. Restrictive abortion laws act as doses that control the symptoms of an epidemic without exterminating it and also cause the development of a lethal plague, abortion-related deaths. By that it is meant that restrictive abortion laws do not necessarily reduce abortion rates, on the contrary, they increase the rates of clandestine abortions in countries with restrictive abortion laws. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the lowest abortion rates -5.5 abortions per 1,000 women per year- belong to The Netherlands, a country that does not adopt restrictive abortion laws and allows women to access free abortion resources. The legislation of abortion does not automatically ensure that more women will access to these procedures, at least it makes sure that women access safe and dignified abortion.

Restrictive legislation of abortion is related to higher rates of clandestine abortion, which as a collateral consequence causes increments in abortion-related deaths. High priority of the legislative and political system should be given to the access to a decent and affordable health system instead of implicitly compelling women to decide between life and death. Instead of criminalizing legal abortion, among the most important objectives is to ensure that women have access to a health system that protects them from accessing medical procedures that threaten their lives and their integrity in society. If restrictive abortion laws are completely abolished from the legislative system of the countries that adopt them, women would no longer be forced to seek a way to access unsafe abortions that can result in monstrous situations for them and their families. To be more specific, clandestine abortions could lead women to death.

Increasing legal access to abortion prevents women from risking their lives during clandestine procedures. According to Iqbal Shah, a Research Scientist in the Department of Global Health and Population in Harvard,and Elisabeth Ahman, a specialized researcher in human reproduction, around 192 women die every day due to medical difficulties that arise from clandestine abortion in developing countries. Because restrictive abortion laws make it difficult for women to access safe abortion, an approximate of four women die every half an hour in an attempt to terminate their pregnancy through unsafe abortion.  This is exactly where restrictive abortion laws are failing to protect the value of human life. In an ideal society, women would not consider abortion regardless of their motives. However, we live in a defective society, one where there is social inequality, injustice, and war. Our society is neither ideal nor flawless from every angle, thousands of women have sought and will continue to seek access to clandestine abortions regardless of their legal status.

Restrictive abortion laws cause women to access unsafe abortions and  involve an enormous, but tacit discriminatory dilemma that favors more women belonging to higher socio-economic classes than those who belong to lower social classes. Think about it in this way, making abortion illegal means that appropriate trained personnel are not allowed to perform this type of procedures because otherwise they would put at risk their professional career.  Because illegally performing these procedures implies serious consequences for professional medical personnel, these providers need something special that motivates them enough to make an agreement with women who need access to illegal, but safe abortions. In other words, women who are part of a society with restrictive abortion laws only have access to safe procedures as long as they have something to offer in return.

It is not a secret that money has become one of the most effective strategies to corrupt human beings. Being this the case, money is needed when it comes to convincing reliable personnel to perform illegal, but safe abortions. Women who belong to high socio-economic classes are more likely to access safe abortions due to their financial status, a privilege that only a specific portion of the world population enjoys.  According to Susana Lerner and Agnès Guillaume, around 71% of the women, from Peru, who experience fatal medical complications derived from clandestine abortions live in poor rural and urban areas while the remaining percentage, 29%, leads to women who belong to high socio-economic classes. Women belonging to the lower social classes are those who are most exposed to serious health consequences related to clandestine abortions. Apparently, the amount of money you have defines how valuable your life is for society. Social inequality makes life to look like an object that is offered in an auction, one in which the person who has more money to offer is the one who has the privilege to own it. Restrictive abortion laws are some of the most abstract representations of social exclusion that silently affects women, especially those living in poor conditions.


Lerner, S., & Guillaume, A. (n.d.). Las adversas consecuencias de la legislación restrictiva sobre el aborto: Argumentos y evidencias empíricas en la literatura latinoamericana.

Shah, I. and Ahman, E. (2009).Unsafe Abortion: Global and Regional Incidence, Trends, Consequences, and Challenges. 

World Health Organization (WHO), (1998), Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality, Ginebra, WHO.


Open Strong- Chemia

  1. Restrictive abortion laws, as venomous scorpions, sting the ones who are barefoot. For centuries, women who have the will to terminate their pregnancy have found access to abortion even if it means accessing to clandestine procedures and exposing themselves to death. Restrictive abortion laws are the most abstract, but pure representation of exclusion that selfishly feeds on the vulnerability of those who live miserable.  Women who cannot afford to protect their feet are destined to die stabbed by the lethal and poisonous weapons of the arachnid predators.
  2.  Restrictive abortion laws, death sentences for those who do not have the necessary resources to defend themselves in court. Instead of preventing women from accessing abortion, restrictive abortion laws prevent women from having access to safe procedures that protect them from death. Access to safe abortion is an implicit form of economic exclusion in which the rich is the one who can afford the right to live in a dignified manner. Restrictive abortion laws create a tacit situation of injustice in which the value of life is defined by the ability of the defendant to corrupt the judge.


Restrictive abortion laws, a fatal epidemic that threatens the integrity of women. Some of the negative consequences derived from restrictive abortion laws are not exposed in their most obvious nature; instead, this epidemic can affect society silently. When these laws are exposed in their most abstract existence, their degree of destruction can be as great as that of a natural disaster that occurs in the most unexpected manner. Isn’t it difficult to control a phenomenon that appears to be so invisible to society? Restrictive abortion laws are an abstract form of exclusion that affects specific groups of women in relation to their socio-economic strata. These laws are implicit demonstrations of discrimination themselves because of their tacit approval to categorize the value of a woman’s life depending on her socio-economic class.

The exclusion of low-income women from getting access to safe abortion results in a tremendous social injustice, one that puts their lives at risk in a demeaning manner. According to Susana Lerner and Agnès Guillaume, studies show that around 50% of induced abortions result in fatal complications. Most of these cases specifically victimize women belonging to disadvantaged social classes since those who belong to higher socio-economic strata are able to finance safe abortions. It is important to emphasize that many of these complications result in increasements in maternal mortality rates, which means that low-income women who access clandestine procedures are more likely to face death than those with financial stability. When it comes to access to health insurance, poor communities tend to be the most vulnerable. This is because in many developing countries the health system works differently in the public health service than in the private one. It means that poor communities benefit less from the health system than the more affluent population. Because public health service is manipulated and controlled by the government and its programs, the health service provided to the most vulnerable communities is affected by social and political problems such as corruption, the practice in which the rich get richer by taking advantage of the vulnerability of the poor. Hence, it is valid to affirm that corruption contributes to a great extent to the inefficiency that can be seen in the lack of budget execution in public health services. Once again, it seems that the social, economic, and political status in which a person belong to act as labels that define the amount of resources available.

Women who belong to low socio-economic classes have the right to access safe abortion. According to Friday Okonofua, “In countries with restrictive abortion laws, abortion services by skilled providers are often too expensive to be affordable and accessible to women of low socio-economic status.” Restrictive abortion laws are in theory discriminatory laws that implicitly favor specific groups of people, which in this case are the ones who have financial stability. Our society is hierarchical, which means that certain groups of people will always be the most vulnerable with respect to various social, cultural, educational, and political issues. This hierarchy generates social inequality that inevitably aggravates the conditions of the most vulnerable groups of people, depriving them of their fundamental rights. Social inequality in economic matters triggers multiple problems that end up affecting the harmonious development of society.  Restrictive abortion laws illustrate social inequality in its maximum expression because they provoke discriminatory treatment to certain groups of people, while benefiting other social classes.

Different from the common belief, abortion legalization has nothing to do with abortion rates. On the contrary, it has a relation with maternal mortality rates. In the article “Las adversas consecuencias de la legislación restrictiva sobre el aborto: argumentos y evidencias empíricas en la literatura latinoamericana,” the authors claim that about 73% of women who live in poor areas in Latin American countries and want to terminate their pregnancy, either practice abortion themselves nor access clandestine procedures. Imagine the risk that these women take when undergoing this type of brutal practices. It is absurd that despite the fact that some Latin-American governments with restrictive abortion laws are aware of these barbarous situations, they do not have the political will to legalize abortion. Nothing should be more valuable than human life, in the same way that there are no excuses for people belonging to medium or high classes to have access to more opportunities and resources than those in economic disadvantage.It should be considered that, unfortunately, differences in terms of levels of poverty or social exclusion that often determine who can have greater access to health services in society. There cannot be compliance with human rights if there is unequal access to health services. Women should have the right to access safe abortion, which should be considered a fundamental principle that represents social justice.

On the one hand, the sense of integrating human rights into society is in some way to ensure that all human beings receive equal dignity regardless of the different social, racial and economic environments that surround them. Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian activist, once said, “I have no right to more than I need when my brother has less than he needs.” Life is priceless, and countries that adopt restrictive abortion laws are indirectly putting life in the market so that those who belong to medium and high socioeconomic strata are the ones who can afford it. Restrictive abortion laws are pure demonstrations of how the lives of women with financial disadvantages are denigrated because of the economic class to which they belong. Clearly, humanity has reached the point where money and wealth are above everything, including life. Social injustice has become a phenomenon that accompanies us in our daily basis without being perceived. injustice is something outrageous. Human beings have dignity and deserve respect and dignified treatment, regardless of origins, beliefs or social status.


Lerner, S., & Guillaume, A. (n.d.). Las adversas consecuencias de la legislación restrictiva sobre el aborto: Argumentos y evidencias empíricas en la literatura latinoamericana. Retrieved from http://www.alapop.org/alap/images/DOCSFINAIS_PDF/ALAP_2008_FINAL_197.pdf

Okonofua, F. (2006, November). Abortion and Maternal Mortality in the Developing World. Retrieved from https://www.jogc.com/article/S1701-2163(16)32307-6/pdf

Safer Saws- Chemia

Source 1

In the article SawStop Sues Bosch over new ReaXX Table Saw and its Flesh-Detection and Blade-Braking Tech,”  there are different claims that fall into different categories including factual claims and opinions.

“I’ve tried to be fair, but the more I hear about SawStop and Stephen Gass, the more of a bully and a jerk they seem to be.”

 “Sounds ridiculous to me. Hey, because you didn’t pay us to license our technology, we’re suing you for damages. As mentioned above, the suit was dismissed.”

Both claims reflect the author’s perspective. It is very clear that the author is against the behavior of Stephen Gass because he refers to them as a pure demonstration of selfishness and evil. When the writer includes the sentence “Hey, because you didn’t pay us to license our technology, we’re suing you for damages,”he indirectly establishes a conversation with the audience to persuade them in an unusual way.  By that I mean that the objective of this sentence is to make the author’s perspective appealing and veridical. When I read that sentence, I feel like Stephen Gass care more about profit than safety. In this case, the author is very effective when trying to put the audience on his side.

“In recent years, they sued 22 companies, including Bosch and other table saw manufacturers, for allegedly forming a secret boycott of SawStop’s technology.” 

This is a factual claim because statistical evidence is used to demonstrate that the argument made is supported by real data. The purpose of using actual evidence is to make the argument credible. The author is concise and clear when presenting the data because he uses very few words that result to be very persuasive. Even though the author does not show where this information come from, it is data that the audience can easily find on the internet if they are willing to make sure that the data is real.

Source 2

In the article “Power Tool Industry Defends Table Saw Safety as Disabling Injuries Increase,” the author addresses the advantages of adding safety technology in manufacturing.

“Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.

It is a factual claim because it provides the audience with statistical data that seems to come from well-stablished studies. This claim is very persuasive because it uses great numerical values that cause sensitive effects on the audience. It is a causal claim as well because it shows some of the consequences of using conventional saws. The purpose of this claim is to convince the audience that the acquirement of available safety technology, SawStop, prevents work accidents such as injuries and amputations. This claim has ability to transmit a clear message using strong evidence that examine the negative effects of disagreeing with the argument made. You can tell that the author is in favor of table saw safety and his main purpose is to show the audience that this technology is worth.

Source 3

In the article “Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit,” the author states:

“No offense, but I don’t think this is a move by Bosch to prevent safety devices, but simply a move to prevent the unintended consequences of adding mandatory safety devices that would, in some instances, double the price of entry level power saws. If the technology were not under patent I would be more apt to explore the concept of encouraging manufacturers to push this technology forward – as an OPTION. However, the manufacturing costs, coupled with licensing fees, make this an almost ridiculous prospect.”

This claim illustrates the author’s perspective. It presents some economic disadvantages related to the addition of mandatory safety devices such as SawStop technology. The main argument made in this claim is that the prices of table saws would double if innovative safety technology was mandatory in manufacturing. The author purposefully includes the word “option” using capital letters to make sure that the audience comprehend that his argument is based on the inclusion safety devices as a choice, not an obligation. I agree with the author because I think that customers should be the ones who decide the product they want to purchase assuming total responsibility of their choices.

Source 4

The author of  the article called “Table Saw Injury Lawyer” claims:

“If you or somebody you know was injured, you should contact our lawyers immediately for a free case consultation. Please use the form below to contact our Product Liability Litigation Group or call toll free 24 hours a day at (866) 920-0753.”

it is a proposal claim as it invites people that are victims of work injuries related to the use of conventional saws to take legal action over these cases. This claim provides a phone number that facilitate the access of help for those who need it.

“SawStop is a safety device that can detect skin contact with the saw blade and stops the blade within milliseconds.”

This is a definition claim because it explains the essence of the SawStop technology. The author also includes the uses of this technology to define it. Including the definition of the technology is very valuable because in that way the audience is aware of the central idea of the article.

Source 5

In the article “Feds might force table-saw makers to adopt radically safer technology,” it is claimed that:

“The CPSC predicts switching to the safer saw design will save society $1,500 to $4,000 per saw sold by reducing medical bills and lost work.”

It is a factual claim because it provides the audience statistical evidence that comes from a legit study by a specific governmental entity.  The fact that the CPSC is a government agency creates a sense of credibility about the data presented in this claim. It is also an evaluative claim as it examines some of the advantages of adding safety devices in manufacturing. The author may have included this claim as an analysis that evaluates the effectiveness of taking a specific course of  action, which in this case is including safety technology in industries not only to prevent injuries, but to reduce the costs of medical bills and lost work.