The subject of abortion is probably on the top-ten list of the most controversial subjects ever.

I have seen people from all walks of life, and people who represent all sorts of ideologies who refuse to take any stand on that issue. This is due to the nature of the issue, no matter what stand one is taking, he/she is risking alienating others who believe differently. He is taking on this sensitive issue from the perspective of health hazards. She is also approaching the problem from the human rights perspective. In other words, Anette is bravely trying to participate in the sensitive issue of pro-life vs. pro-choice. I admit that I am no expert on the issue of abortion, but my first instinct was a pure astonishment when I read the number that He mentioned in her research. She mentioned that “the health minister in the Argentine government stated 2006 that there are approximate 700 000 illegal abortions taking place every year.” This number is not so far behind the number of abortions in the USA. I know that Argentina does not have an enormous population, and I was surprised to see this big number of abortions whether legal or illegal. This drove me to make some research on the World Wide Web. I found that the Argentine population in 2006 was roughly 38 million, and in comparison to the USA with a population exceeding 300 million, the number He mentioned was really big. In addition, I carried out further research, and I found that 83% of all abortions are obtained in developing countries and 17% occur in developed countries1. Just this fact alone raised my eyebrows, and made this high number that He mentioned more comprehensible, it makes more sense now that Argentina has this enormous number of abortions. All in all, He introduction was framed properly; it highlighted the problems of illegal abortion and all the health hazards that could follow, and the issue of pro-life vs. pro choice. Do women have the right to do whatever they want to do with their bodies? If the answer is yes, then abortion should be legalized. Is abortion a murder? If the answer is yes, then abortion should be limited and rarely allowed. He is approaching this dilemma from the perspective of women and their right to choose, and she is supporting her argument with the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. He also highlighted the issue of health hazards that may occur after illegal abortions, and argued that the cost of the health problems that may occur after these illegal abortions is an unnecessary burden on the Argentine economy. He is

1

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

She is also hoping to sway the minds of Catholics. but merely an attempt to protect human rights. She has a valid point and I admire her enthusiasm and accuracy. I advocate the idea that the participant to the interviews would be chosen as the research progress. He emphasizes that her research is not an attack on the Catholic Church. He states clearly that her research is aiming first and foremost to improve the bad situation that imposed on women who are seeking abortion. Otherwise. and issues of suppressing. The study is provocative and brilliant at the same time. and then it continues with “the participant to the interviews will be chosen as the research progress. She is merely trying to improve the situation for women who underwent through the hell of illegal abortions. It sounds great. the research states that the participants in the interviews will be selected by recommendation from the CDD. change for the good and to the better of humanity. and hoping that her research will help the CDD to get The Catholic Church to implement the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights. I believe that our role as researchers is to provide the knowledge required to achieve change. however. the method section started with couple paragraphs that are clearly belong to the introduction. She is . The research has the method of case studies with focus on unstructured interviews with open-ended questions. I just wanted to see a small extra section regarding writing and disseminating the research.also hoping that her research will function as a tool/vehicle that the CDD would use to sway the mind of the Catholic Church with its religious power and enormous influence on the Argentine government. the author did a tremendous job. he is implementing the advocacy/participatory worldview. which is an important factor in the Argentine life. However. He hoping that her study will contribute to sway the Catholic Church’s view on abortion in a positive way. or what? Nevertheless. there is only one thing not very clear to me. and providing the participants with a preliminary copy of the research. Regarding the ethical issues. Regarding the purpose of study. falsifying or inventing facts. and get the Catholic Church to join the fight for abortion legalization. he did great job framing clearly her questions. and I also would like to know the author views on ghost authorship. It does not matter if I am a pro-life or pro-choice.” I am not really sure if it meant that the issue of the participants is not settled yet. She is not advocating or supporting one ideology or religion over another. in regard to the use of language. it is more flexible and leads to better interviews and clearer facts. Regarding research questions. This is what I admire the most in the study. She also using the strategy called grounded theory.

improve bad situation and advocate human rights. Finally. Keep the good work! I only hope that my contribution to your excellent research is helpful . I wish the author all the luck. and I hope that her research will open the door for many people to discuss and debate the important issues of abortion. religion and human rights.trying to save lives.