What are women's right considered to be? Freedom of speech; yes. Freedom of religion; yes. Pursuit of happiness; yes. The ability to vote; yes. The access to an abortion seems to be a question everyone is divided on. My answer to that question is that an abortion is not a right. Abortion is not the answer for these reasons, the way abortions are performed are barbaric, the baby has individual rights a human's life is not disposable at convenience. Besides when can the baby not be considered to be a living human being with rights ? A baby's life begins at conception. At this point it is a individual person just as any normal peron with rights would have. At week 5 a baby's heart, spinal cord, and brain begin to form and develop. By
…show more content…
There are many different types of abortions. Nevertheless, each are just as cruel as the next, but the most common is Vacuum aspiration. During a vacuum aspiration a vacuum like tube is placed into the cervix, which sucks and dismembers the developing child into a jar. The second most common is a saline injection. This injects a poisonous fluid that surrounds the baby. It poisons the baby by burning the baby's skin away, and then by swallowing it. The process of a Saline injection could take anywhere up to an hour to a couple of hours. Even through these cruel conditions there are rare cases where the fetus manages to survive. When a baby survives an attempt to be aborted, they live with challenges from one decision. One case of an unsuccessful abortion was Claire Culwell. Claire Culwell's mother decided to have an abortion at age 13 they proclaimed that the abortion was successful, and she left. Later on she was told she was still pregnant and that the abortion only removed one of the twins. Claire ended up being born prematurely and very frail. She had to have an extensive amount of physical therapy so her lower body would grow into a normal …show more content…
People that argue for late term abortions say life begins when the baby is actually born, at its first breath. However the contradiction to that is that if someone were to shoot the pregnant mother, killing her and the baby, it would be a double homicide. In the state of Texas a man (Matthew Sowders) was faced with the death penalty or life in prison for murdering his ex-wife and unborn child. The baby has still not, yet it was still considered murder. With the pro-choice logic it should not have been murder, yet it was. So how come aborting the baby isn't murder, and it is instead a woman's choice? What changes? The changing factor is that the mother did not want the baby so she has the option to kill it legally- it becomes her choice. Where is the logic in this? How does the mother not wanting to have it change anything? The baby dies in the end no matter what. The final result is just based off of feelings that society has made socially
There are many different types of abortions. Nevertheless, each are just as cruel as the next, but the most common is Vacuum aspiration. During a vacuum aspiration a vacuum like tube is placed into the cervix, which sucks and dismembers the developing child into a jar. The second most common is a saline injection. This injects a poisonous fluid that surrounds the baby. It poisons the baby by burning the baby's skin away, and then by swallowing it. The process of a Saline injection could take anywhere up to an hour to a couple of hours. Even through these cruel conditions there are rare cases where the fetus manages to survive. When a baby survives an attempt to be aborted, they live with challenges from one decision. One case of an unsuccessful abortion was Claire Culwell. Claire Culwell's mother decided to have an abortion at age 13 they proclaimed that the abortion was successful, and she left. Later on she was told she was still pregnant and that the abortion only removed one of the twins. Claire ended up being born prematurely and very frail. She had to have an extensive amount of physical therapy so her lower body would grow into a normal …show more content…
People that argue for late term abortions say life begins when the baby is actually born, at its first breath. However the contradiction to that is that if someone were to shoot the pregnant mother, killing her and the baby, it would be a double homicide. In the state of Texas a man (Matthew Sowders) was faced with the death penalty or life in prison for murdering his ex-wife and unborn child. The baby has still not, yet it was still considered murder. With the pro-choice logic it should not have been murder, yet it was. So how come aborting the baby isn't murder, and it is instead a woman's choice? What changes? The changing factor is that the mother did not want the baby so she has the option to kill it legally- it becomes her choice. Where is the logic in this? How does the mother not wanting to have it change anything? The baby dies in the end no matter what. The final result is just based off of feelings that society has made socially