What is being discussed in the video? Explain your answer.
The content of the video is basically about the basic knowledge of abortion. Things that common people need to know related to abortion. It talks about the definition of abortion, the classification of abortion, the risk factors that can lead to abortion, the things that woman can do to prevent abortion, and the the treatment of abortion.
What is the speaker’s main purpose? Explain your answer.
The speaker’s main purpose is to inform the audience about the common knowledge of abortion.
How trustworthy is this video? Who is the speaker? What is the source? Do you think the source and the speaker are trustworthy?
The video was uploaded from youtube channel named “Medical Centric”. It has 263k subscriber and their video is all about medical things. I think this video is trustworthy for us to know about basic knowledge of abortion
What the speaker’s attitude or tone towards the subject? Does he/she seem to agree or disagree with it? Explain your answer.
The speaker’s attitude toward the topic is neutral since the purpose of the video is only to inform the audience about abortion so the speaker don’t take any side when explaining the topic
Does the speaker put forward valid or strong arguments? How does he/she support the key points? Explain your answer.
They do not bring any arguments, instead they bring facts and datas
Explain how this article will help contribute to your larger group project.
This article will help me in building my background knowledge about abortion. Before it, i only know a little about abortion from medical’s view so it’s important for me to know more about abortion in medical’s view.
What is being discussed in the video? Explain your answer.
The video talks about their disagreement of the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that looks set to strike down Roe v Wide. In the opening of the draft declaring that Roe v Wide needs to be overruled and it is actually wrong from the start. They decline the argument in roe v wide that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to have an abortion. This draft triggers public outrage in the United States because if the draft has been determined, it would be difficult to have access to a legal and safe abortion, In the other hand there are around 25% of women in America have an abortion and six of them are already a mother, some of them are survivor from rape and incest and maybe for medical reasons, and some of them having abortion because the want to do that. It is about the right of people to have control over their body and the constitution must not interfere about this. In the end of the video the speaker provide the information that can help women who wants to have an abortion
What is the speaker’s main purpose? Explain your answer.
Their main purpose is to persuade the audience that the draft is actually a catastrophic. It will dismiss the legal, easy, and safe access for having an abortion, of course it is also contrary with their ideology of freedom. With the draft being determined, it makes the freedom of choice and the right on their own body become limited. The video wants to spread an awareness to the people that this is something they need to be concerned of.
How trustworthy is this video? Who is the speaker? What is the source? Do you think the source and the speaker are trustworthy?
I can say the video is quite credible because they are on airing in HBO. Despite the speaker is a comedian, he still bring the news professionally with satirical look at the news. The news is based on the fact that happened in America. I think the source and the speaker is quite trustworthy
What the speaker’s attitude or tone towards the subject? Does he/she seem to agree or disagree with it? Explain your answer.
the speaker attitude toward the topic is sarcasm, he disagree with the topic about the draft opinion that wants to overruled the roe v wade. Watching the video, we can see clearly that the speaker is totally disagree with the draft opinion, he explains about the effect if the draft is really determined, he also retells the story of woman who wants to have an abortion but facing a difficulties in doing it, not only that the speaker do really express his sarcasm on the topic.
Does the speaker put forward valid or strong arguments? How does he/she support the key points? Explain your answer.
Yes he does. Each of his arguments are always included the data or the evidences that support his argument. For example, when he rebut the draft opinion by Alito, he states and provide the evidence that Alito, in making the draft, cited from untrustworthy source for reproduction thing. He also provides the interview video of woman who needed an abortion but couldn’t do it because of the law. It raised the audience empathy toward the problem
Explain how this article will help contribute to your larger group project.
It helps in expanding my insight toward my topic
What is being discussed in the video? Explain your answer.
The podcast was exploring the abortion rights around the world and the International response toward the US Supreme court decision to overrule Roe v Wade and also understanding how abortion rights and access varies across the countries. Some countries state that the overruling of roe v wade is such a decline in a woman’s reproductive rights and will impact to others country.
From the podcast, It is said that the right of abortion is globally toward the liberalization, about 36 countries had moved to liberalize their law in the past 15 years. In Canada, abortion has been decriminalized since 1983, but the access is still not guaranteed right. Some women still need to drive to another areas to get abortion. Even though Canada has decriminalized their abortion law, the pro life organization is still exist there.
Move to another area called Malta, it is an archipelago in the central Mediterranean between Sicily and the North African coast. The government said, they will review their law about abortion after a couple of tourist want to sue Malta because the doctor there refusing to do an abortion, despite the mother is in danger if the baby is still inside. If they did that, it happens to them to end up in jail, both of the doctor and the patient. Therefore the tourist need to had an emergency medical evacuation to Spain to have an abortion.
In japan, where the abortion has been legal since a long time, it is easy to find the abortion pills but a woman needs to have a partner’s consent before having an abortion. Moreover, the price of the one pill is extremely pricy, those only from a wealthy background can afford this.
And there are more perspectives from others country.
What is the speaker’s main purpose? Explain your answer.
The speaker’s main purpose is to give new insight about varies law from across the world
How trustworthy is this video? Who is the speaker? What is the source? Do you think the source and the speaker are trustworthy?
The video is very well trustworthy because they interview the the person who is an expert in the field from each country.
What the speaker’s attitude or tone towards the subject? Does he/she seem to agree or disagree with it? Explain your answer.
It suppose to be neutral but somehow i feel that the speaker want to emphasize that abortion supposed to be legal. They do elaborate about why countries need to liberalize their abortion law, but they do not explain so much from the “pro life” side.
Does the speaker put forward valid or strong arguments? How does he/she support the key points? Explain your answer.
Yes, the speaker use a statement from people who are expert in the field to support their argument
Explain how this article will help contribute to your larger group project.
This article definitely will contribute a very big role in my project because from this podcast i go so much new insight about abortion across the world, it makes me easy to research for further information about law of abortion
What is being discussed in the video? Explain your answer.
The moral dilemma about abortion. The speaker said that abortion is indeed an extremely difficult question and complex problem, but if we want to talk about the moral dilemma of abortion we can start by the question “Are fetuses person?”
There are several theories we can have to explain this, but the famous theory is the one who said that fetus is a person. Next, even though we already knew that the fetus is person that doesn’t mean we already solve the abortion problem. the philosopher agree that yes the fetuses are person and yet the abortion is still legal and justified because a woman who is gestating the fetus has a right to stop that gestating even the result is the death of a person..
Another argument comes from Judith Jarvis Thompson, an American philosopher, she said imagine yourself a heavy night of drinking, you got drunk, you blacked and the morning you fid yourself a human dialysis hooked up the world’s most famous violinist. In this case, you have the right to unplug the machine even though it will cause the death of the violinist. she analogize this to a mother who has a right to unplug their fetus. Perhaps it is the same case with a rape, incest or kidnapped case where a woman is unconscious.
What is the speaker’s main purpose? Explain your answer.
the speaker main purpose is to explain about the morality dilemma of doing abortion. He explained clearly and very well, the argument behind “even though we can consider fetuses are person and yet abortion is still legal and justified” is there is a right of another entity that has overcome whatever interest the fetus has and in this case is the right of mother who is gestating the fetus, therefore the claim is yes the fetus is person and yes abortion will cause the death of a person, but that doesn’t mean abortion is wrong because a woman who is gestating the fetus has a right to stop that gestating even the result is the death of a person. from the explanation he intend to make the audience to stop confusing about the dilemma because there is a reason behind it all, and i think the speaker did it very well in explaining the reason.
How trustworthy is this video? Who is the speaker? What is the source? Do you think the source and the speaker are trustworthy?
The video is very well trustworthy. The speaker is Prof. Glenn Cohen, he is one of the world’s leading experts on the intersection of bioethics (sometimes also called “medical ethics”) and the law, as well as health law. He also teaches civil procedure. From Seoul to Krakow to Vancouver, Professor Cohen has spoken at legal, medical, and industry conferences around the world. and i am pretty sure that the source and the speaker is credible.
What the speaker’s attitude or tone towards the subject? Does he/she seem to agree or disagree with it? Explain your answer.
his tone looks neutral over the topic, he doesn’t seem disagree with the topic but for me it is more he wants to explain the topic as best as he can
Does the speaker put forward valid or strong arguments? How does he/she support the key points? Explain your answer.
Yes, in supporting his statement, he use some theories related to the topic not only that, he also quoted from some famous figure about their famous experiment.
Explain how this article will help contribute to your larger group project.
It will help me to explain about what should woman do to overcome the abortion dilemma
What is being discussed in the video? Explain your answer.
the topic that is being discussed in the video is about the abortion debate. It stated that the room between two sides is so intense till there in no breathing room, it creates a perfect storm for misinformation. Therefore they try to clarifying those misinformations
What is the speaker’s main purpose? Explain your answer.
The video is clarifying the argument in both sides that somehow contain a misinformation, the purpose of the video is telling people whatever your opinion toward the abortion, it doesn’t matter, what matters is you opinion isn’t informed by misinformation
How trustworthy is this video? Who is the speaker? What is the source? Do you think the source and the speaker are trustworthy?
It’s not really trustworthy, but i can say that the argument they stated in the video is based on fact because i have seen those datas before in another article. i’m saying the video is not quite trustworthy because the didn’t put any resource at all
What the speaker’s attitude or tone towards the subject? Does he/she seem to agree or disagree with it? Explain your answer.
They are so unbiased toward the topic because the purpose is to clarifying the misinformation from both sides
Does the speaker put forward valid or strong arguments? How does he/she support the key points? Explain your answer.
they do bring some statistic data in the video, but unfortunately they didn’t mention any source where they cited the data
Explain how this article will help contribute to your larger group project.
this article help me to conclude my whole topic