Friday, February 13, 2009
Roe v Wade (PP3)
Please read the 1973 US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Roe v Wade provided via the linked Touro College website. Discuss the following: What did the Supreme Court say about personhood, privacy, and state rights and obligations? Was the Supreme Court capricious in its decision or was the case carefully considered and the reasoning sound? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Generally, If abortion due to safety of a mother, rape and an uncontrolled phenomenon is not included in the topic, with complete personal sense and perception, I would say having a law that forbids an abortion by choice would benefit us in many ways. With due respect of mothers choice, I think legalizing abortion seems to eradicate the common feeling of protection needed for early stage of life, and that’s of course whether some official or religious institution thinks life begins at conception or not. If legal, then a person might wake up in the morning and decide to have an abortion because of the economic situation or they (couples) felt not ready and changed their mind. In this aspect, if the law forbids it, it increases the number of couples that would think thoroughly from every angle and initiate future plan that could make them go through the pregnancy period with certainty of bringing life in to this world. I want to exclude the complaints made by Dr. Hallford and the Does, and relatively talk about Roe’s case. First of all, if you ask anybody why they are considering abortion, they would either some it up in simple words (I changed my mind) or mention problems that is already existent that might slightly increase with the presence of the baby (like finance). If a person is weighing this with the very element and significance of giving a birth to that baby is, then they probably did not give themselves the time to think of the possibility of having a baby sometime in their future, or the value of life*, or the regret they might have after quick decisions they make. Now, I am not saying people are stupid and incapable of making the right decision, or I am not saying unintentional pregnancy can not happen but if it does, a person usually relates that decision with explanation of how important the abortion is and bring about reasonable argument. Roe never tried to deeply explain the significance in correspondence to her and her arguments where in general basis (privacy stated in the constitution). Dr. Hallford wanted to use the issue of legalizing this highly controversial topic as just a escape of his pre-exercised crime. The Does where worried of future conception although the law actually supports abortion due to the threat a conceived child brings. If it’s not something profoundly out of our control as in rape and medically required abortion, then forbidding abortion will extremely and positively affect the chance of unintentional pregnancy and sex without protection, by bringing a notion of legality issue in the outcome of what we are about to do (unprotected sex). This might be difficult in the case of teenagers but the unlawfulness of an abortion (to highest percent) will turn their attention to look for help or think thoroughly in going through with pregnancy, or give the baby to orphanage (if finance or other case of inability to raise is the issue). I know there are some risks involved, like teenagers running away, but this (if illegal) will make parents talk about this situation before it happens because no parents will want their daughters to ran away from them even though they are enraged by the situation. I know there are some other considerable risks involved but since we can’t partially legalize abortion and say we are going to let the court make the decision depending on how reasonable or emotional the situation is to the judge, we are required to chose between legalizing abortion or illegalizing it. Imagine how legalizing abortion can influence our decision making and elevate the number of abortion in the future. I strongly believe, there are some things we have to sacrifice for society in general.
* In all of us, there is a feeling or sense that tells us aborting a baby is not like taking the trash out. Which means we all feel or sense that it is a life or has some kind of value whether some popular author, high official or some one you respect states that “life starts at birth because blah blah blah”.
I personally believe that abortion is wrong on a few levels. First of all, if Roe is a single mother, then why would she want a kid? My initial thought of this situation maybe she is making bad choices by having sex with multiple partners. If a person doesn’t want a kid, then they shouldn’t have sex or by means use protection. To me abortion is just morally wrong all around. To me there would have to be certain situations where I might reconsider my opinion. For instance, if a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant, yet unable to care for the baby for whatever reason, then IT might be okay. However, there are other alternatives when it comes to giving birth. To me if a mother is unable to care for the child, the mother could put it up for adoption. What sickens me sometimes are when mothers leave their baby in a dumpster. Yes they were probably scared and did not know what to do. That doesn’t mean they should just leave their child in a dumpster. How would you feel if you found out that you were a dumpster baby? The court system for abortion is very complicated and not perfect even to this day. To my understanding, the court will leave the decision into the physician’s hand regarding to mother’s health. Getting an abortion is probably one of the most difficult decisions a mother could make. I myself have not been in this situation, but hearing and reading stories about these drastic decisions had me open up more to the views of abortion. Yet in my opinion, I think it’s wrong because to me, it’s destroying a living human being that is waiting to discover and learn in the real world.
Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in our society. Most people are broken up into three categories, pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between. I am somewhere in between. My standing differs from one circumstance to another. For instance, I don’t believe it’s right for abortion to be used as a contraceptive. If you are stupid enough to get caught, and you just don’t want to have the baby, you need to deal with the consequences or your actions. But on the other hand, if there is a possibility that the mother or the baby is in danger, or there is something wrong with the baby and it’s going to die after birth, or the baby has a terrible illness and could never lead a normal fulfilling life, I think it should be up to the mother and father, what they feel is best to do. In the case of incest or rape, I understand why the mother would not want to have the baby but I think it’s not the baby’s fault and it should have a chance to live, even if the mother gives it up for adoption, it’s better. There are so many different circumstances that it’s impossible, for me at least to choose pro-life or pro-choice. Personally, I could never deal with the guilt of having an abortion, or even giving my child up for adoption. I would feel like a part of me is missing, but that’s not the case with some people. Some “mothers” don’t think anything or throwing their new-born babies into a dumpster. This world is a crazy place and if a woman is desperate enough to have an abortion, and can’t because of state laws, she will find a way..so what’s better? Decisions like these are so hard to make. It’s hard to say whether the Supreme Court was right in its decision. I think there are areas that could be improved on, but then again there is always room for improvement. I do believe that the child should have the right to live, but I also believe that a person should have the right to do with their body as they please. It’s such a tough issue and I don’t think I could ever be labeled pro-life or pro-choice.
The Supreme Court views on personhood, is that the fetus at the time of conception is not a human being, not until 24 and 28 weeks, when a fetus is able to live outside the mother’s womb. Privacy rights would be granted to individuals so that they would not be able to disclose information about the individual’s abortion.
I think the Supreme Court was fair in it’s decision. I think that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, whether good or bad. I’m not saying that I agree with abortion, only in the circumstances that having the child would kill the mother, the child would have some life threatening sickness, or in the case of rape, but I don’t think that some state law should mandate what you can or cannot do with your body.
The abortion topic is another very difficult issue to discuss. Ones beliefs and opinions play a big role in the discussion. I personally would never have an abortion. I believe that having an abortion is taking a life which didn’t have the choice of living. There are certain situations like, rape, which I understand completely that a women would probably not want to have it, but in the end it is still a part of her and by having that procedure done she is killing the baby. The Supreme Court states about personhood that, it is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. It is hard for me to say if the Supreme Court was right in its decision. Because first of all I don’t think it should have even gotten to the point where the Supreme Court got involved because I don’t agree with abortions. But after all a person has the right to do whatever they wish with their own body. I cannot tell them what they can or cannot do with their body. That is why God gave us all a brain so we can choose whatever we want. The main thing that does bother me about abortions is that many couples could prevent it by being more cautious. It frustrates me to see young teenage girls having more than two abortions because they can’t take care of it. And that is not fair when someone is killing a life over and over again.
I would like to say that although I do have an opinion about abortion, I am really tired of hearing the subject discussed. I don’t think I’ve ever had an English class where someone hasn’t written a paper about it, either for or against. It is the same arguments over and over. Personally, I’ve had enough, and have lost interest in this topic.
By the way, the Bible was misquoted in class. At Exodus 21:22-25 it brings up a situation about two men struggling with each other and hurt a pregnant woman. If the child is born alive and unharmed, the woman’s owner could impose whatever damages he chose; however, if the child was born dead, then it says, “you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…” and so on. So God must consider unborn children as valuable as anybody else.
In the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision, the Court talks about personhood and what it means. While they recognized that the Constitution doesn’t define what a person is, there are many areas in the Constitution that talks about a person. An example that the Court used was the definition of what a citizen was. A citizen is a person who was either born in the United States or was naturalized. Basically, a person was someone who had already been born and was living, not to an unborn child. The Court took into consideration the prevailing attitude towards abortion at the time the Constitution was written, and reasoned that our founding fathers didn’t consider an unborn child as a person, thus not falling under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I felt the Court did an admirable job dealing with the privacy issue that was brought up in this case. One of the arguments against the state of Texas was that forcing a woman to have an unwanted child could cause the mother distress, psychological harm, and to be stigmatized by society; therefore, the choice of the woman to terminate her pregnancy should be one that she can make whenever she wants, wherever she wants, and for whatever reason she wants. That her right to privacy was absolute and the State had no business at all to limit her choices. The Court disagreed with this argument. The Justices recognized that there is a point where the rights of the mother have to be weighed against the rights of the potential life that she is carrying. It’s almost like they were saying, “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should.”
They concluded a woman should have the right to decide to have an abortion, but that the State had the right to put some regulations into place. The Court delved into the history of abortion, going back many centuries. I found it interesting that even though attitudes towards abortion were favorable, there still were limits to when it could be done. Histories talked about “quickening”, and that once a woman’s pregnancy was at this point, abortion wasn’t advisable, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Legally, both in England and here in the United States in the 1800’s, the penalties for abortion before quickening were considerably less than they were after quickening. The Court seemed to look at attitudes about abortion through the ages, then take this idea of “quickening” and compared it to what is known about the development of a baby, to come up with the following decision. Texas’ abortion law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the State couldn’t make it a crime for a woman to have an abortion, they could regulate who could perform the procedure, the types of places abortions could be performed in, and licensing of physicians and facilities for abortions. They ruled that the State could place increased restrictions on abortion relative to the length of the pregnancy.
The Supreme Court took the time to do the research into this topic, considered what the Constitution said, and the attitudes about the topic of those who wrote it, then tried to balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the unborn child.
I thought that I was so pro life that I would never have to think of anything else. In reading I decided that everyone has their own opinion and my opinion is this, abortion is still wrong and a woman should not have the right to say I want to kill the possiblility of life within me because I made a mistake. I understand the situation of someone who is raped or so forth but I can not side with the courts decision in setting minimal regulations. If the bar was set higher, then the adult woman should set her safety precautions higher. There are ways of testing possible sick or unviable pregnancies before concieving and it should not be an excuse. In my opinion again, I think that God would not have created miscarriages if he wanted us to abort his creation.
I am pro-choice after years of being raised to believe that women who have abortions are selfish. That is no more selfish than women who chooses to have a baby knowing full well that her child will forever depend on them or the state for medical care and funding. My mom calls me her miracle baby as she was told she would be lucky to get pregnant again or at all. I was born 9 weeks early. Babies born as early as 21 weeks are living, but is it humane? these babies have a higher risk of a brain bleed and severe disabilities. I think maybe 30 years ago women had abortions forced on them more than as a choice. Its not as though women are solely dependent on men to care for them, you can be a single mom and do ok. At the time of my birth there was a Doctor who was telling women they had to get a C section or their child would be born retarded, my aunt was one of his victims. This same Doctor would sew up an episiotomy tight for the husbands pleasure. I think Roe v Wade was very forward thinking for its time. I was in Jr High when teen pregnancy reached its peak and knew a few girls who were pregnant in high school. I think the rape and incest reasoning for abortion to be ok is much abused. I admit that had I been raped in 1996 and not just fought him off I would have had an abortion. Some people's DNA just doesn't deserve to keep going on. That is the purpose of the rape going on in the Congo and Rawanda, to dilute and eradicate a race of people on the bodies on women and girls. Here in America we are already seeing a change with the economy, more Birth Control being used and maybe more abortions, during uncertain times. During the depression the birth rate dropped dramatically. Then we had the Baby Boomers. It was the baby boomers who gave us this choice, that I as a woman have a right to continue or terminate a pregnancy given my own situation. This is a private matter between a woman, her doctor, and whomever she calls "god".
I think that some cases of abortions is wrong because if the women does not want a child she could give it up for adoption and keep the baby. However, I would say since it’s not my body and it’s not my place to tell someone what to do with there body. In the Roe v Wade case the Supreme Court ruled that the unborn child was not considers a human yet but “potential life” and could not get the same constitutional right as the mother. They also agreed with the fact that women in the 1970’s need a reason to get an abortion and they had to be a medical reason but because they said that it violated the ninth and fourteenth amendment and the supreme court agreed with that. I think the Supreme Court made the right decision with the circumstances they were under and it’s the mother’s body and they the right but I don’t fully agree with abortion because it’s taking once again a potential life. We could be killing then next great person in history, but we will never know and that what’s disturbing and I agree that abortions are ok when the mother is danger and the baby could kill her but there are still things that make me understand why some choose abortion.
The human life is such a complicated subject and it would be very difficult to express the different aspects of expressions on the case of Roe V Wade.The early English and American Courts along with the common laws considered the fetus to be human since the quickening time which is the time between 16-18 weeks of conception.An abortion performed before quickening was not considred a crime and if it is performed after the quickening, it is a crime.As medicine advances and the medical professionals committee adapted its own abortion laws and urged the states to adapt laws more severe laws for the fact that the fetus is considered a potential human being.The court also rules how the privacy of individuals including pregnant woman is not violated when dismissed the complaints of Roe to have legally protected abortion in the state of Texas.The law states that privacy and individual rights are not absolute, meaning that there is a limit to privacy and individual rights.The State has the right to preserve health and protect potential life that is the fetus.The state allows abortion if the life of and healt of the mother is undermined by the continuation of of the pregnancy.By doing so, the state is preserving health and also protects the unborn child from destruction by abortion and by making it a crime for any body to perform an abortion as they please.The court has decided by carefully considering all the controversial reasoning of the differnt sides and in my opinion, the state is right in doing so because in a civil society there are so many different ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy.A mother has a lot of different ways to be responsible and make the right choices that are much less controversial.Even after pregnancy, there is a choice to adapt the child instead of killing the helpless child.Roe, unmarried woman might have financiall problem or emotionally unprepared but still she has a choice to carry the child to full term and give it away for other people who are financially secured and ready to raise the poor baby.I completly agree with the court protecting the unborn baby as well as preserving the mothers health by allowing abortion in cases the cases that the mother's healt is compromised.I also agree when they put limits on privacy and individual rights.It is like when someone calls 911 and asks a police to come and help family members.Can the state say we can not protect you because that is your home?At this moment the state is interfering with the privacy rights of the individuals and it is living up to its obligation; protecting the public.We can use the same analogy to the womans privacy and freedom of choice in order to protect the unborn child inside the womans body.As we can enjoy our privacy and individual rights, we all have to be sensible and use our rights in a responsible way.
The Supreme Court stated that a fetus is not cited as a person according to the 14th amendment. The privacy of the pregnant woman cannot be secluded if the medical definition of a developing human is used. Her sole right to privacy must be measured as a result. The States rights and obligations are to preserve and protect the health of the pregnant woman, and human life.
I feel that at this point in time the decision the Supreme Court made was just. In this document it’s noted that they were to make this decision not by personal feelings but by what is in the best interest of the people. Ample research was conducted back to Greek times and there appeared to be come controversy even then. This decision is never easy and should lie in the hands of the woman. She is the one that will face the consequences of her decision to terminate or not terminate the pregnancy. I think the best thing we can do for our people is to give them choices and provide them with appropriate and safe environments to decide and carry out the decisions in. Many people were involved in this decision and of course it was not an easy one to make. I agree with the decision the court made to allow abortion however I do not agree that abortion is the right step to take for every situation. No circumstance is ever going to be the same when it comes to a decision about abortion. The research into our history and how medical instances were handled played a very large role in making this decision. I do not feel that it was made with personal opinions or preference which is why I believe their reasoning was very sound.
The significant outcome of Roe versus Wade was that abortion was made legal in the United States. Of course society especially antiabortionist frowns on this and feels that it will cause a slippery slope effect. The significant factors that help build this case was the first, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. It made reflection to the ninth amendment as follows, “the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Parts of the arguments was that since we all have the right to privacy; therefore it is that right of privacy that also protects a woman and her choice to whether she wants to have a child or not. The state of Texas in a way felt that as a state they have the right to intervene and enforce that the unborn child had actually had rights and that it was the states obligation to protect them. Throughout the trial the state’s case it seemed to be hinged on that very premises’. The court defined personhood as in stages; as the embryro developed into a fetus and than a baby it became more and more of a person. So in essence, they didn’t consider a person as a whole.
Now to address the issue if the Supreme court had carefully considered the case and was their decision sound or not. Yes, it gave the freedom of choice back where it belongs. We all make hundreds of decisions a day for ourselves. Does anyone step up and help you make those decisions and carry them out for you? Furthermore do people except your consequences for all your decisions too, of course not. Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in getting and abortion for any old reason. However, life is sometimes unpredictable and when faced a situation and a undesirable decision of whether to keep the child or not is one of the hardest decisions to make, along with giving up their child for adoption. We all have regrets and decisions to make and ultimately no one can know what or how it is to be in your shoes. It’s not one size fits all
I will be straightforward with the topic of abortion; I am absolutely against abortion when the mother’s life is not in danger. There is no way abortion should be legal. The Supreme Court ruled that mothers have the right to privacy and the right to have an abortion because the fetus does not have the same constitutional rights as the mother. They considered fetuses as potential humans but does not deemed them a human being. I understand in philosophy, fetuses are considered as “FLO” which stands for future like ours. If these children have a future like ours, is it not our responsibility as human beings to seek and make sure these children grow up to reach their potential. Since when did it become our right to kill at our disposal and convenience? Only God has the right to take away life, not us imperfect human beings. Of course there will be instances where the mother’s life is at risk and the child has to be aborted. What I am against is the voluntary abortion of a baby just because the mother wants an abortion with no medical reasons whatsoever. I am tired of hearing this controversy over and over again discussed in almost all literature classes. Therefore, I will just close with this statement, it is not about who’s right but what’s right; we can no longer ignore our conscience and try to manipulate the facts to make us sleep better at night.
Miriam -
I, myself as a woman, and as pro choice when it comes to the topic of abortion, believe it is a woman’s right, and should be aloud to make decions on how to live her life. I do however believe the state and the courts should be allowed to intervene where there is blatant and obvious neglect when it comes to deliberate disregard to human life. The state believed by the past laws they where protecting the life of the unborn and as well as the mothers health. The courts spent a great amount of time to research and investigate how this issue was dealt with by our ancestors. I think this was commendable even though the time frame it took caused the inevitable. The doctor in this case, I think was only interested in assisting simply to erase his prior inditements, and to further benefit himself in a future practice. As well as the Does are concerned, I think it was foolish of them to bring a situation like theirs to court. How can a person fight for something that had not yet occurred? There is a point of responsibility that I think was overlooked by the couple and where only thinking of themselves. I was very taken on the comment made by the courts witch showed to me that there was a sincere effort in trying this case with all do respect to the sensitivity of the topic. If all the best physicians and scientists could not come up with an answer then how a court was expected to make a judgment call on anything other than the facts. Witch in this case the facts being to vague to make judgment on.
I believe in the argument that abortion is a three sided issue: forced birth vs. forced abortion, with individual choice as the middle ground. The freedoms and liberties we experience here are far greater than those given elsewhere and we as a country have had to improve upon our own Constitutional rights. They decided not when life begins, but when a fetus can survive outside the womb, which I do agree is the best decision possible. They are many different instances and occasions where abortion is used and simply giving the baby up for adoption is not always a practical, reasonable option. This is a personal decision that must be made by the mother of the fetus. Making abortion illegal won’t simply solve the amount of unplanned pregnancies. If it’s outlawed then people will simply have back alley abortions with untrained professionals using hangers as demonstrated and proven before abortion was legalized. This raises the risk to the mother’s health and the State has the obligation to protect the mother’s health and proscribe an abortion by anyone that isn’t a licensed physician. The State’s obligation to the fetus is not until the fetus can live independently of its mother, where then the fetus had the right to continue its gestation and then the mother (and/or father) makes the decision what happens to the newborn.
The Supreme Court stated that the right to privacy in the 14th amendment and the 9th amendment regarding preservation of people’s rights and the restriction upon state action is broad enough to encompass the woman’s right to chose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. I’d certainly hope my own medical decision regarding my own body is my own private right. The government has no right to force birth and also no right to force abortion. The detriments of the State’s interference into this decision are clearly listed and demonstrated. However, this right to privacy is not absolute and must be weighed against the State’s interests of safe guarding health, maintaining medical standards and in protecting potential life. Since it is a medical procedure obviously the State must set standards and guidelines but not regulate a decision. A fetus has no potential of life outside the womb and thus no life at all, until viability. Gestation inside the womb is not living in our definition in which living makes you a person with rights. The criterion for deciding if a fetus is a person has not persuaded me, I do not feel a fetus is a person with rights that needs to be protected. I do disagree with the Marquis and Quinn’s argument and agree with the subsequent parts of the on page 83-84. Also I researched the pro-life arguments for the neurological criterion of a person that brain waves appear in fetus as early as 40 days gestation. Per the neurological criterion the fetus is now a person since it has brain waves. However, premature babies born before 32-35 weeks do not have normal sleep spindles and no activity whatsoever has been found in the cerebral cortex as early as 120 days from modern research. The research often cited, if cited at all, is outdated and not solidified by the medical community. This website http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm is a good overview about the issue with this criterion, while
http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Applied_Ethics/Abortion/concept_of_personhood_4.php goes more in depth on the issue at large.
Until approximately the end of the first trimester the State may regulate the abortion procedure in ways reasonable to maternal health. Subsequent to the viability the State may regulate or even proscribe abortion except when it is medically necessary for preservation of the mother’s life. States may proscribe abortions by anyone that isn’t a licensed physician as defined by the State. These guidelines do allow increasing restrictions on abortions as the pregnancy progresses as so long as they are tailored to the recognized State interests and only State interests. The State is not in the position to decide on its own when life begins, or simply adopt the Church’s official belief because there is a separation of Church and State.
The Supreme Court decided that since there is such a wide divergence of thinking and professionals among the fields of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at a decision, the Court is not in a position to speculate an answer. I wonder since there isn’t sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude one position or another wouldn’t it be unconstitutional for them to have chosen one philosophy over another? How could they rob someone of the fundamental right to choose their own philosophy on such a subject? If one chooses not to utilize their option due to their own beliefs then no harm no foul but how could they decide to take another’s right to disagree and make their own decision? We say majority rules as so long as the majority isn’t suppressing the minority (i.e. suppose the majority of America believes in slavery but it’s unconstitutional and illegal), but wouldn’t illegalizing abortion be the same?
People argue that an unborn fetus is a person and that is exactly why it should be illegal, we are suppressing the rights of the unborn. However, this is where the analogy falls flat because a fetus (embryo, blastocyte, zygote, the unborn, etc.) isn’t a living, breathing, born and conscious person with rights that are protected under the Constitution. Now people say that slaves weren’t either at first and even though abortion was legal and not thought morally wrong at the time of the Constitution, that we have a right to correct that mistake too. However, I think we can all agree where these two situations differ. For one the overwhelming majority of people are now against slavery and the arguments for slavery have been debunked logically and reasonably. The abortion choice, however, has no one consensus and has not been logically, medically, or otherwise decided upon beyond a reasonable doubt. There is a spectrum of views on abortion and though there are advocates against the Supreme Court’s logical and abstract decision, how could they have done anything else? How can we make women a slave to their own bodies without the option to at least choose?
I see no fault in the logic they used to render their decision. They looked through history to see what the views of the abortion have been and put the Constitution into context (referring to whether not they were referring to the unborn as “persons”), they also looked at the reasons why historically and why currently the State is objecting to the procedure of abortion and evaluated the arguments logically and practically; the arguments simply didn’t hold up in court. There have been no documented cases of the unborn being regarded fully as persons in the law and when asked abortion protestors who all agreed that abortion should be illegal they either have no answer or say that its depends or that the mother’s need counseling or that God will punish them. If an unborn is a person with rights then the penalty of killing them should be the same as murder, since this is what the pro-life advocates’ state. Obviously, this is an inconsistency in their thinking. The protestors who were questioned used God or the grotesque pictures of the aborted infants as the reason why they were there but didn’t convey their conviction in their answers. I agree, the pictures are grotesque and the procedures sound barbaric but that doesn’t make it wrong, immoral, or illegal
Abortion is always is difficult topic to discuss. Some people are totally against it and some people are more pro choice. On the other hand lots of people are in between and that is where I stand as well. In my opinion I feel that the court was right to legalize abortion. Women should have the choice to decide whether she wants to have the child that she and her partner conceived. Everyone has a different story and I don’t believe that abortion is always right. Abortion should not be used as a form of contraception either. I have not always been in between pro life and pro choice. Recently I saw a documentary on the TLC channel that made me think differently. The documentary was called Mermaid Girl. The story was about a baby girl that was born with her legs attached. The baby had no reproductive organs and had to have a hole in her stomach to basically go to the bathroom through. It was a bad sad story. She had lots of health problems and her legs would never be able to be separated due to her unusual condition. The mother contemplated every day whether she should have aborted the baby and not brought this baby to suffer. Ultrasounds had actually showed that the baby would be born with her legs attached and it was left to the parents to make a decision. In cases like this I feel as if it right to choice to abort.
I think that abortion is wrong in all cases. But there is an exception. That only exception that I could think of is if a women got raped or its do to help safe the mother’s life. Other than that I don’t think that abortions should be allowed. In this case I think that they made a really bad decision when they legalized abortion. Because every human being has there own rights and even though that offspring has come out and taken his first breath that doesn’t mean that it’s not alive. And by letting women abort this babies it’s like having them murder. If they don’t think that they are ready to be parents or simply don’t want the baby the best thing for them to do is to give to adoption were someone that is going to love him and care for him is going to go and adopt. But those babies have the rights to live just like me and everyone else.
For those wondering about the Bible passage regarding the death of an unborn child, the quote is:
And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25 (New American Standard Version)
This passage has been historically interpreted to mean the death penalty only applies in the case of further injury (or death of the mother). Death of the unborn baby is not considered murder per this verse and is not subject to the same penalty. The death of the unborn child is punishable only by a fine and then only if the father demands payment.
Post a Comment