Sherry Alexander Writes
  • Welcome
  • About
  • Blog
  • Guest Student Essays
  • Guest Student Stories and Narratives
  • Inspiration
  • MY Books for Children and Tweens

Ban the Bags! by A.M.

1/18/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by roberta errani
People tend to take the most convenient path even though it may have bad consequences since the consequences don’t immediately or directly affect the person.  This includes the usage of single-use plastic bags.  Using them has bad consequences, but these consequences don't immediately or directly affect us.  For their bad impact they urgently need to be banned. This means a full ban of their usage and not just a tax. People who are against the ban of plastic bags may be clinging to reasons such as your freedom of choice and plastic bags are not causing the environment harm, but instead it is our misuse of them.  However, are these concerns unwarranted?  Is it feasible that these concerns are void and outweighed by the benefits of a ban on plastic bags?   Anyone around the world who uses plastic bags should believe in and support a ban on plastic bags;  humans are in danger from plastic bags, they cause environmental damage, are non-biodegradable, create great wastes when being made, and it harms and kills animals; for these reasons we must make all types of plastic bags banned worldwide.
    To commence, individuals who use plastic bags should make the switch to reusable bags, for the risk they cause to human safety.  Debatewise, a debating website, looked into both sides of why plastic bags should be banned or not banned.  One reason some people may be refuting the ban is they want freedom of choice, [w]hy should we not be free to chose to take a plastic bag? As with everything else there must be a market price for plastic bags that includes the cost of making them and the cost to the environment in the monetary cost (therefore providing revenue to clear up the leftover plastic bags), at this particular price there will still be some people who are willing to pay the cost for the convenience of just being able to pick one up with the shopping, or if a shopper has forgotten to bring their own bags with them they should be able to buy plastic bags at the shop. There is no need for an outright ban on plastic bags.
     For example, if one person stopped using plastic bags for the harm they caused and another did not.  The person who stopped using single-use bags could be killed by the other’s ill choices.  Yes, your plastic bags you thought only hurt other creatures can kill you.  Britta and Qamar, two research scientists for Curious Kids, worked on and published an article on August 2nd regarding how plastic bags harm the environment.  This quote was uncovered in the article, “Many people don’t realise that plastic bags can also cause flooding. Previously in Ghana (in West Africa), plastic bags blocked storm water drains during a big rainstorm. This caused flooding so bad that people were killed.”  This may come as a shock to anyone who does not believe in the ban of plastic bags, but they endanger human beings.  For the threat to our safety and others, plastic bags must be banned.
    In addition, the input of a ban on plastic bags is necessary for the harm they cause on the environment.  Plastic bags are an eyesore to us on land and smother plants on the sea bed.  Britta and Qamar wrote this, “Plastic bags can also smother corals and other seabed communities”...“On land, plastic bags are an eyesore. They get stuck in trees, along fence lines, or as litter at our parks and beaches.”  Plastic bags are killing essential plants on the seafloor and are atrocious to look at when discarded in nature.  An example of the harm they cause the oceans is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  Akpan, a digital science producer for PBS NewsHour and is co-creator to ScienceScope, wrote, “617,000 square miles...” This is the area of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  Which from an article posted on the February 11, 2020 from The Ocean Cleanup is the size of …“an area twice the size of Texas or three times the size of France.”  The National Geographic Society posted on the ninth of October in 2012 that, “In reality, these patches are almost entirely made up of tiny bits of plastic, called microplastics. Microplastics can't always be seen by the naked eye. Even satellite imagery doesn't show a giant patch of garbage. The microplastics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can simply make the water look like a cloudy soup”...“The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a collection of marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean. Marine debris is litter that ends up in oceans, seas, and other large bodies of water.”   This example was of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which  is only one of the larger patches of garbage in the oceans.  These patches are, as said in the quote above, made mostly of micro plastics.  Plastic bags cause harm to the seabed plants and on dry land can be eyesores to humans.  Due to the endangerment to the environment, it is essential to ban plastic bags.
    Connecting to the reason above, plastic bags urgently need to be banned for being non-biodegradable.  Plastic bags cause harm to the environment, but the biggest concern is once they get there, they will not go away for a long time.  From the Center for Biological Diversity comes a post, entitled 10 Facts About Single-use Plastic Bags, states, “It takes 500 (or more) years for a plastic bag to degrade in a landfill. Unfortunately the bags don't break down completely but instead photo-degrade, becoming microplastics that absorb toxins and continue to pollute the environment.”  From this article, once a plastic bag gets into the environment, there seems no end when it will stop causing harm.  This is a major problem. From Debatewise this piece of information comes, “An estimated 17 billion plastic bags are given to British consumers. We do not need this many plastic bags in the world. The pollution caused by their creation alone is enough to warrant a ban on their manufacture and their use. In addition, they do not degrade well in our rubbish dumps, so they will remain on this planet forever more. We cannot have this accumulation of plastic bags and the only way forward is to ban their distribution and use.” Having so many plastic bags produced and distributed each year is madness, and there being no end to their harm seems reason enough to ban plastic bags.
     Trailing, single-use plastic bags should be banned across the globe for their waste when being made.  This refutes and counteracts the claim from Debatewise of, “We all have to USE the plastic bags instead of MISUSING it. All of us throw the used plastic bags on roads and other places. Infrastructure needs improvement to recycle plastic bags. plastic bags can be totally recycled. If we are not using plastic bags then we’ll rely on other resources which are paper bags, reality check : production paper bags cannot fulfill the requirements of today’s world.”  This reason does have sense when talking about it being in oceans, but the people who may be latched on to this reason have not looked into the strain plastic bags have on the environment before reaching the consumer.  The making of plastic bags is a complete waste.   When counting what goes into plastic bags you must include both the compounds that make up the plastic bags and the ones used to put those compounds together.  From Debatewise comes this statement, “Plastic bag production uses almost 10 percent of the world’s annual oil supply. Only 3.5 percent of this number are recycled. This means that much of the planet’s precious natural resources are being used to produce plastic bags that many of us maintain are unnecessary. The chemicals and compounds that go into making plastic bags could also be utilized in a far more effective manner.”  This means infrastructure and guiding the use of the plastic bags will not completely fix the problem of plastic bags.  Showing the most effective way to protect the environment from plastic bags is to ban them in all types worldwide.
     Finally, plastic bags most definitely need to be banned for the harm they cause animals.  Plastic bags directly harm the animals, not just their habitat.  Uncovered in Curious Kids article “Turtles (and other animals) may mistake plastic bags for food. Turtles like to eat jellyfish, and we think turtles eat the plastic bags because they resemble jellyfish.  When turtles eat plastic, it can block their intestinal system (their guts). Therefore, they can no longer eat properly, which can kill them.” If the animals aren’t mistaking the bags for food they are tangled in it.  This can be found later in the Curious Kids article, “When plastic bags end up in our oceans, animals (including seals, dolphins and seabirds) can get tangled up in them. An animal with a plastic bag around its neck will have trouble moving through the water, catching its prey or feeding, and escaping predators.”  As the article says animals caught up in a plastic bag will have its ability to travel hindered.  This can potentially starve them or help other species be able to eat them.  To be specific on how many animals plastic bags kill, this piece of information has been collected, “100,000 marine animals are killed by plastic bags annually...” (10 Facts About Single-use Plastic Bags).  For this reason plastic bags should be banned, or at the bare minimum, cause you to stop using them.
    To come to a close, everyone who uses plastic bags should switch to reusable bags and support the change by calling for a ban on plastic bags.  This means all types of plastic bags everywhere.  Anyone who did not believe in using reusable bags and battled the ban might have been worried about their freedom of choice and the belief that bag don’t actually hurt the environment, just the misuse of them.    These concerns are important, but you may have been overlooking the major damage plastic bags cause.  Having freedom of choice is important, but some don’t care about the environment.  These people who don’t care shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the planet for those who do.  The other claim of bags not harming the environment, but instead the misuse of them, is only partly true.  The misuse of them does affect the damage they do, but the sheer number of them has its toll on the environment, not to mention how bad it is just making them.  Some reasons for why plastic bags need to be banned is that many people do not know, is they are harmful to humans.  Plastic bags can clog drains and cause flooding in a storm.  These plastic bags also cause environmental damage by smothering coral in oceans and being an eyesore to people.  An example being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is 617,000 miles squared.  Not only do these bags hurt the environment, but when they get there, they don’t go away for a very, very long time, 500 or more years.  Ensuing that, not only do these treacherous bags cause damage after they are handed out, they also are a great waste in the process of them being made.  The compounds needed to make the bags alone are bad, not to mention the chemicals and materials put into the making of the compounds together.  The final plea is one of the most tragic, it is they kill an estimated 100,000 marine animals a year.  Some animals mistake them for food and others get trapped in them.  Both of these scenarios end in almost certain death for the animal.  Don’t take the most convenient path if it has bad consequences even if they might not immediately or directly affect you.

 
Works Cited List

10 Facts About Single-Use Plastic Bags, www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/sustainability/plastic_bag_facts.html.

Akpan, Nsikan. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch Weighs More than 43,000 Cars and Is Much Larger than We Thought.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 22 Mar. 2018, www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-weighs-more-than-43000-cars-and-is-way-bigger-than-previously-thought. 

Britta Denise Hardesty Principal Research Scientist, and Qamar Schuyler Research Scientist. “Curious Kids: How Do Plastic Bags Harm Our Environment and Sea Life?” The Conversation, 2 Aug. 2019, theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-do-plastic-bags-harm-our-environment-and-sea-life-98859.

“Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” The Ocean Cleanup, 11 Feb. 2020, theoceancleanup.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch/. 

Krosofsky, Andrew. “Just a Few Choice Arguments as to Why Plastic Should Be Banned.” Green Matters, Green Matters, 22 Oct. 2020, www.greenmatters.com/p/plastic-should-be-banned-arguments.

National Geographic Society. “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” National Geographic Society, 9 Oct. 2012, www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/. 
​
“Should Plastic Bags Be Banned?” DebateWise, 9 July 2020, debatewise.org/1011-should-plastic-bags-be-banned/.


0 Comments

Stop the Drill! by K.M.

1/18/2021

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Zbynek Burival on Unsplash
Many common actions we do have huge negative effects on our planet and its inhabitants.  Some reasons you may think drilling is good, is it has immediate economic benefits.  By removing the oil, it also reduces pressure causing less gases to be released.  If the oil that is pushing the gases to the surface is not dealt with, more marine life will die.  You may think the positives of oil drilling outweigh the negatives, but could it be, the negatives actually out way the positives? Proponents of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in Alaska, should use a better, renewable source of energy,  since drilling for oil can cause harm to wildlife and marine life, drilling can heavily affect the environment, it has a negative effect on plants, and it can cause climate change to speed up.
            Advocates of drilling, you should think about using a more renewable source of energy for the wildlife and marine life that are in danger if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  One reason is drilling can affect the way animals go about their habitat.  The second reason is if an oil spill were to occur, it would mean animals’ lives.  The next two quotes come from the Wilderness Society's article “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment”:  "Oil and gas extraction is a menace to wildlife. Loud noises, human movement and vehicle traffic from drilling operations can disrupt avian species’ communication, breeding and nesting..."  In this quote, it reveals how oil drilling can negatively affect wildlife.  “Big oil spills are known killers of wildlife… Smaller spills, including of other substances in the oil extraction process... can also be dangerous. During oil extraction on land, drilling fluids are injected into the well for lubrication. These oil-based fluids known as "mud" are supposed to be captured in lined pits for disposal, but they’re often spilled and splashed around the drilling site....”  This quote states that oil spills, big or small, can kill wildlife or marine life.  It also states substances used in the extraction process can spill and kill wildlife and marine life.  On the contrary, this next quote informs us that underwater oil pockets can seep out causing a small amount of marine life to die.  "...natural oil seepage accounts for more than half of the oil pollutants in the ocean, which push methane gas into the atmosphere and create oil slicks on the water’s surface that can negatively effect marine populations. Oil drilling reduces the pressure of oil reservoirs underground, which greatly reduces the amount of hydrocarbon seepage – and the amount of methane gas in the atmosphere..." (Flournoy)  Although, if they do extract this oil, it can disrupt the marine life that lives there, and if the oil were to spill, it could be devastating.  This paragraph has talked about how wildlife and marine life are heavily affected by drilling.  Meaning, the animals that were once safe and protected in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have their lives at risk if drilling took place.  This is one of the reasons why you should use a renewable source of energy.
            In addition, advocates need to consider the consequences to the environment if we do not use a renewable source of energy.  The first two quotes come from the article, “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment”.  The first quote talks about how the damage of oil drilling can be irreversible.  "Infrastructure built for oil and gas extraction can leave behind radical impacts on the land. The construction of roads, facilities and drilling sites known as well pads requires the use of heavy equipment and can destroy big chunks of pristine wilderness. The damage is often irreversible."  If we let drilling occur in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it could permanently damage the landscape. "The study’s researchers warned that even if oil and gas companies eventually abandon these sites, it can take centuries before the land fully recovers… Development of oil and gas complexes can cause serious and long-term damage to land, including,  Stripping the environment of vegetation, Increasing erosion, which can lead to landslides and flooding, Disturbing the land’s ground surface, Seriously fragmenting unspoiled wildlife habitats"  This quote provides a little hope that the land would eventually go back to the way it was, but it said that it could take centuries. The quote also states some of the actions that need to take place to drill, and that those actions can have a long-term effect on the environment.  What is a little bit of land for such a nice economic benefit you may ask?  It is true that oil drilling is a great way to boost the economy.  With drilling comes more jobs, and the price of oil is good for whichever country has it.  A quote found from an article on the website Scinceing.  “The process of extracting, refining and using the by-products of crude oil requires hundreds, if not thousands of people: the industry built around oil drilling and oil itself creates jobs in a wide number of industries including shipping and transportation as well as medical research – the immediate benefit of oil drilling comes in the form of job creation and economic boosts...” (Flournoy) Are more jobs being made at the cost of our planet really worth it?  The jobs only last as long as the oil is there.  The destruction stays long after the jobs leave.  In all, the environment will get destroyed if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  This destruction may be irreversible, or it will take centuries to go back to the way it was.  This is just another reason to use a renewable source of energy.
          Promoters of drilling, you should also use a renewable source of energy for the plants that are being killed because of drilling.  The subsequent quote comes from the website Sinceing.  “Oil drilling in Alaska can have disadvantages for plant life. Seismic vibrations can disrupt plants' growth patterns. In addition, the infrastructure from oil drilling can cause drainage issues for plants. Infrastructure, particularly road-building, can also lead to alkaline dust spreading across and settling on topsoil. This dust can have negative impacts on plant development and overall health.” (Devaney)  Plant growth patterns get disrupted, the infrastructure required for drilling causes plants to have drainage problems, and alkaline dust gets spread across the topsoil, which has negative impacts on plant development and health.  With our ever growing society we have less and less plant life.  We must keep the plants we have left alive and well.  For the plants, use a renewable source of energy.
          Supporters of drilling, the last point you should consider for using a renewable source of energy is how your lives could be in danger, along with the whole planet.  Drilling can contribute to climate change.  The oil extraction process can cause greenhouse gases to be released into the air.  Also, when oil is used in cars or when it is burned, it can cause these gases to be released.  I found a quote to support this in the “7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment” article.  “... humans have been burning more and more fossil fuels, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have been trapping unwanted solar heat and causing the planet’s temperatures to rise. The consequences are all around us in the form of longer wildfire seasons, stronger hurricanes and harsher heatwave... Another gas, methane, is released during the extraction of natural gas through the method of “fracking.””  This quote explained how greenhouse gases, including gases released when oil is being extracted, are a direct cause of climate change.  This is one of the many reasons to use a renewable energy source.
            To conclude, advocates of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should find and use a less harmful, more renewable source of energy.  Proponents of drilling may have thought that the positives of drilling outweighed the negatives.  Two of these reasons may have been that oil can boost the economy, and by taking the oil out from the oceans, it helps marine life.  From one or all of my reasons, you’ve changed your mind to think there are more negative outcomes than positive ones.  Here are the reasons summarized.  First, wildlife and marine life are in danger if drilling happens in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Next, drilling can have  a huge, negative, environmental impact,  and drilling can have a devastating effect on plants.  Lastly, drilling can cause climate change.  Many actions that happen all around us have huge, negative effects on our planet and its inhabitants.  Have you ever thought about the consequences of oil drilling?  In the same way as other actions, it has a catastrophic effect on our planet.  You can do your part: stop the drill.

Works Cited List

“7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment.” The Wilderness Society, 9 Aug. 2019, https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/7-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-environment

Devaney, Erik. “The Disadvantages of Oil Drilling in Alaska.” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, https://sciencing.com/the-disadvantages-of-oil-drilling-in-alaska-13662686.html
​
Flournoy, Blake. “Oil Drilling Benefits.” Sciencing, 2 Mar. 2019, https://sciencing.com/oil-drilling-benefits-6127185.html




0 Comments

ABORTION IS NOT THE WAY by A.S.

12/4/2020

0 Comments

 
PicturePhoto by Liv Bruce on Unsplash
​Imagine all the life experiences people can achieve a lifetime. Now imagine that none of that happened because the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy decided abortion was the  best choice is to get rid of the problem. Why would that happen? Some people believe it is the woman’s body and she has the right to do what she thinks is right for her body. Luu Ireland of the University of Massachusetts Medical School stated, “Women choose abortion for multiple reasons. The most common reason cited is that pregnancy would interfere with education, work or ability to care for dependents.''  What about the life inside that woman? Does it have rights? Is abortion the only way to get rid of the “problem”? Any person, young or old, who believes abortion is a viable option to giving birth should understand that this is a life and death matter, because life begins at conception, abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies, abortion promotes a belief that life is disposable, and abortion is the same as murder.
     To begin with, anyone considering an abortion, should understand that this is a life and  death matter because science has proved that when a human egg is fertilized, all the material to create that human being is immediately transferred from the mother and father. The father contributes half the DNA and the mother provides the other half. From that point on, who that human being is going to be is already decided. The embryo has all the characteristics, chromosomes, and genetic material that is present in almost all living organisms. The book, Human Embryology & Teratology, states, “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed...” (O’Rahilly et al12).  Given that the human embryo is a living organism with a structure of DNA, it will be who it was from conception to an embryo to a fetus to an infant. People argue abortion is legal because a fetus can’t live outside the mother. They believe, “Viability has . . . become an important feature of the law . . . . In jurisdictions adopting this approach, abortion is lawful or accessed with less difficulty, before the point that a fetus is deemed viable” (Romanis). Since an embryo has all the chromosomes and DNA that it will carry for all its life, it is a living human being. Just because it gets oxygen from the blood of its mother through the umbilical cord, does not mean it isn't alive. Viability means nothing. The fact is that it is a life even though it is temporarily inside the mother, or not viable,  should help anyone to understand that at conception the fertilized egg is already alive.
     Moving on, another life and death matter when considering abortion is that abortions reduce the number of babies that are available for adoption. The Adoption network estimates that there are between, “one and two million couples” waiting to adopt a baby, and that “. . . there are about 1.3 million abortions” every year. Yet, “only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies place their children through adoption”. If a woman does not want to become a Mom, then there are millions of women who want to be but can’t have their own child.  The argument is that, “. . . children born should preferably be wanted children . . .”,  then abortion is not the only option for an unwanted pregnancy. (Humanist International) There are ways to control whether or not a woman gets pregnant. She can take birth control or use other methods. The ratio of abortions to live births is “ . . . 186 abortions per 1,000 live births”(CDC). That’s 186 more babies that anyone who is considering abortion could realize that just because the child they are carrying is unwanted should realize that that child could be adopted by a mom and dad who are waiting for a child.
     Another reason this is a life and death matter for anyone considering abortion, is that it promotes a belief that life is disposable. Life is precious, and ending a pregnancy by killing the life inside throws that life away. In 2014, Congressman, Randy Hultgren said, “When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us”. Some claim that abortion is needed when the fetus has something wrong with it, or has a disability like Downs Syndrome, because the fetus will never live a normal life, but whose life are these people trying to protect? You should never kill someone just for selfish reasons. If someone is considering abortion they should understand that there are other options to this life and death matter, and no life is disposable.  
     More importantly, there is a life and death issue anyone considering an abortion should realize before making that decision. The killing of an innocent human is wrong. It is actually murder. The dictionary defines murder as, “ . . . the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” (Murder, Merriam-Webster). Even the U.S. government and 38 states know how wrong it is, and even passed a law protecting unborn babies against violent acts. This is U.S. Code 1841, known as the Protection of Unborn Children law. This law makes it a crime to injure an unborn child “maliciously”, and considers them as human beings by the Federal government. The claim that women control their own body was supported by the courts in an abortion case knows as Roe v. Wade. It stated, “. . . the Constitution gives “a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,” and that “This right of privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”(Romanis). Regardless of what this case says, the unborn child is a human being and the woman carrying it inside of her is like an incubator. So in the end, the consideration of abortion before a baby takes its first breath is not only a life and death issue, it is still murder. 
     In conclusion, any person, young or old, who believes abortion is a viable option to giving birth should definitely reconsider this life and death matter. People who supported abortion might have been preoccupied with viability, or the ability to survive outside the womb, and the right of the woman to control her own body regardless of the fetus inside her. However, as the evidence above indicates life begins at conception, abortion reduces the number of adoptable infants, abortion promotes a belief that life is disposible, and that abortion is actually murder. First, who you are when you are born is determined at conception even though the fetus continues to grow and develop because the genetics are set at conception. Second, if a woman does not want to become a Mom, then there are millions of women who want to be but can’t have their own child, so adoption is an option. Third, life isn’t something you just throw away. It is precious and you only get one shot at it. When you think about it, abortion is even worse than killing someone, because you are killing them before they can even experience life. Fourth, The killing of an innocent human is wrong. It is actually murder. Even the US government and 38 states know how wrong it is, and passed a law protecting unborn babies against violent acts. Imagine all the life experiences people can achieve in a lifetime, if when the mother is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, abortion was not the option because the woman understood abortion is a life and death matter and chose life instead of death.


                                                             
Works Cited List

“18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111.  (Went into law June 25, 1948)

“18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of Unborn Children.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841.

“Abortion.” Abortion - MU School of Medicine, medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/abortion.

“Abortion.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion. 

 “CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 Nov. 2019, www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm.

Goldsmith, Barton. “People Are Not Disposable.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 6 July 2015, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-fitness/201507/people-are-not-disposable

Hamilton, Brady, et al. “Vital Statistics Rapid Release PDF.” CDC, CDC.gov, May 2020.

Ireland, Luu. “Who Are the 1 in 4 American Women Who Choose Abortion?” University of Massachusetts Medical School, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 27 June 2019, www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/. 

Marianne Bitler Madeline Zavodny, et al. “Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number Of Unwanted Children? Evidence from Adoptions.” Guttmacher Institute, Guttmacher Institute, 6 Dec. 2016, www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2003/01/did-abortion-legalization-reduce-number-unwanted-children-evidence-adoptions.

“Murder.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, 2020, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder.

O'Rahilly, Ronan, and Müller Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd ed., Wiley-Liss, 1996.

“Population Control, Family Planning and Abortion.” Humanists International, 28 Jan. 2019, humanists.international/policy/population-control-family-planning-and-abortion/.

“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Abortion, 4 June 2020, abortion.procon.org/.

“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Abortion, Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 June 2020, abortion.procon.org/.

“Pros and Cons of Abortion: 16 Things Every Woman Should Know.” Unplanned Pregnancy,
Indikon Media, 2020, unplannedpregnancy.com/abortion/making-your-abortion-decision/pros-and-cons-of-abortion/.


Rettner, Rachael. “Is a 'Fetal Heartbeat' Really a Heartbeat at 6 Weeks?” LiveScience, Purch, 17 May 2019, www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html?_ga=2.248162887.1981102804.1604866831-1435737810.1604866829.

Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. “Is 'Viability' Viable? Abortion, Conceptual Confusion and the Law in England and Wales and the United States.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 9 Oct. 2020, academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa059/5918485.
​

“US Adoption Statistics.” Adoption Network, Adoption Network Law Center, 2020, adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-statistics.



0 Comments
Forward>>

    Guest Essays

    Due to the fact that all students who share their essays are under the age of 18 years, the student's name will be identified only by their initials. All rights are maintained by the student, and no essay may be reproduced or copied. 

    Archives

    March 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly