Friday, September 18, 2009
Roe v Wade (PP4)
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
21 comments:
The court attempted to define personhood by way of historical precedent and preceding viewpoints. It seems that a recurring theme was the idea of quickening, or the fetus’s first movement. Usually the quickening happens between 18 to 20 weeks and although this was often used as a marker for personhood in the past the court seemed to agree that viability outside the womb would be a determining factor on personhood and set this to be about the end of the first trimester. In terms of privacy the state protected the personal privacy of the individual by allowing filing of grievances under a fictitious name and ruled that certain judgments against the allowance of abortions to be performed violated the rights of the mother’s privacy and in some instances the physician patient relationship. As far as state obligations, the Supreme Court decided that the state’s interest in protecting the life of the mother as paramount throughout the pregnancy, while the protection of the unborn child increases with gestation time. The court also does not mandate the states to pass laws that legalize abortion on more broad terms than already exist in that state, however the court does allow for such laws to be passed.
I think that due to the amount of historical precedence and attention to how the public opinion has changed and evolved over time, it can certainly be said that the court’s decision was carefully thought out and reasonable. The prevailing logic seems that as the embryo grows, so does the consideration for the rights of the unborn child. The reasoning was sound when we consider that no proper line can be drawn for the moment when personhood, or an implantation of a soul so to speak, then it is a reasonable view that development occurs on a gradient. This gradient view is such that an abortion of the 3rd trimester is essentially of a viable pregnancy and therefore less ethical than an abortion of a pregnancy early in the first trimester.
In the Roe vs. Wade court battle, the Supreme Court ruled that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until “the point at which the fetus becomes viable.” The Court then went on to define viability as the potential “to live outside the mother's womb, without artificial aid.” The Court also stated that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.” So in essence once a baby reaches the point of “viability;” which means it can function pretty much free of aid, is where the Supreme Court drew the line on abortion. The Court then went on to say that if a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, then the viability requirement does not affect her. To add to that, privacy was also obviously another main component in this case, the line needed to be drawn between where the Government was allowed to intervene and the woman’s decision. The question arouse as to whether or not a woman should be allowed the privacy of making the decision on her own or if the State had the right to challenge her. The Court ruled that the State Governments have no say in what a woman can and can not do in the first trimester. During the second trimester the Court stated that it is still the woman’s decision, but the state may implement stricter policies. Finally in the third trimester the Court decided that the State had the authority to ban abortions at that stage due to the viability ruling. In the end, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled fairly and that their decision was ethical. I do believe that there was much time and effort put forth in this decision, and that it was not an easy one to be made. The ethics behind when an abortion is okay should be taken seriously and I do believe that much research was done and their decision and reasoning were indeed sound.
With the Court case of Roe v. Wade I agree with the rulings and the decisions set aside by the courts. They were in my opinion reasonable and very well defined answering several unanswered questions and coming to a very fair ruling.
The court tried to look at personhood in a historical perspective comparing it to what was said to be a person. The appellee argued that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. However the court argued that this was not justified and proclaimed in the Amendment. It was argued by the State that the Constitution doesn’t really define what a “person” is, rather it simply contains three references to a “person” the first in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the U.S.” Therefore in the Supreme Courts’ argument over personhood there was no determination settled upon. I believed that this reasoning on the debate over personhood was good because without the real definition of a “person” no one can determine it.
With the States considerations about privacy there was debate but resolution on when to intervene. The right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision on whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Specific instances such as direct harm medically diagnosable and physical harm are imminent. Mental and physical healths are key priorities in the debate over privacy. The Court ruled that “a pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy.” The Courts ruled is a reasonable for a State to step in on certain matters pertaining to the unborn child or the health of the mother. A woman still has the right to privacy but it is measured accordingly. The right of privacy debate that the Court settled I believed to be reasonable in that in the case of mental instability the State should step in to protect the potential life.
The States’ rights and obligations go as follow the State has an obligation to the health of the mother. The State may regulate the abortion procedure due to the health of the mother. The person that must perform the abortion has to have a license and has to be qualified to perform the procedure. In the matter of the potential life the “compelling” point is a viability the State can regulate and protect the fetal life when it can presumably have a meaningful life outside the mother’s womb.
The Courts decision I believe was capricious in the fact that many things were still unanswered and left open for interpretation however; key decisions such as the debate over when life actually starts were indeed answered because the truth of the matter is there is no proof or scientific fact of when life actually begins. Overall I thought that the hearing was reasonable in most of their unanimous decisions.
After reading the Roe v. Wade case, I believe the Supreme Court’s decision was very carefully considered. To help come to a verdict, they looked at abortion starting from the ancient times up until the some years of the nineteenth century. The looked at rules and point of views of abortion during this time period. There were many “loop holes” that the Supreme Court went through in order to come out with a clear enough verdict to the case. The Supreme Court also considered different factors of considering abortion. However, I was not clear on they’re views of rape victims. The States rights and obligations were tossed around a lot but it really just came down to the Supreme Court saying the State could not take action against a woman who wanted to terminate her pregnancy because that was a violation of her privacy stated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment. However, the State can step in if it has concerns about the pregnant mother’s health and the health of potential human life. On the topic of privacy, the Supreme Court saw in favor of the pregnant woman and her right to consider an abortion; however, the State could interfere if it felt the need due to its “interests in regulation”. Finally, the one of the most controversial parts of the case. Determining when a “person” was created. Cultures from Ancient times to now still have different views. One was that life is created during conception, the other being life is when you take your first breath. There was also a lot more in between those two, however, the Supreme Court ruled and saw that an unborn child was not considered a person and was somewhat stated in Fourth Amendment and other historical documents. In the end, the court determined the statutes of Texas too vague.
Mr Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973. He stated that their decision was free of emotion and of predilection. (Roe v Wade) Their reasoning placed emphasis on the medical and legal history and what history reveals about man’s perception toward abortion procedures over centuries. An issue within the case argued that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. However the Court stated that the constitution did not define “person” in so many words. The constitution makes three references to “person”. One reference defines “person” as “citizens” or persons born or naturalized in the United States. “Person” also appears in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. Thirdly, “person” was used in listing of qualification for Representatives and Senators. The Fourteenth Amendment did not view a fetus as a person as argued by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concluded that the use of the word “person” in the Constitution applied to postnatal. There was no indication of possible pre-natal application. Therefore the Court adopted the view of personhood as one that was gradually changing. It stated that as the fetus developed, it became more of a person. Personhood increased by degrees of time. Therefore, personhood increased as the pregnancy progressed.
Another issue addressed by the Court was a woman’s right to privacy. The Court’s decision took into consideration that the right of privacy encompassed the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty, the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of right to the people and the detriment that the State would impose upon a pregnant woman by denying her the choice of abortion altogether. The Court determined that these concepts validated a woman’s right of personal privacy to include the abortion decision but this right was not absolute. The Court also determined that at some point the state’s interest to protect health, medical standards, and prenatal life would become dominant and overrule a women’s right to privacy. The Court decided that the state’s rights and obligations had a vested interest establishing regulations and guidelines for abortion. In order to determine when states rights and obligations super ceded a woman’s right to privacy, the courts determined the viability of the fetus between 24 and 28 weeks. The court stated that the State had a vested interest in the potential life. This was determined to be the compelling point or viability of a fetus. The viability of a fetus is presumed to have the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. The Court concluded when viability is determined; States now had the right and obligation to protect the fetal life. The Court determined each trimester of a pregnancy to be a different degree of viability thus increasing the involvement of the State’s rights and obligation. During the first trimester, the decision of abortion is the right of the woman alone and the state has no say. During the second trimester, the decision of abortion is still the woman’s right but the state may impose stricter regulations that are reasonably related to protect maternal health. During the last or third trimester, due to viability at this stage, the State’s interest promotes the potential of the human life. Therefore it may ban abortion altogether unless preservation of the life or health of the mother takes precedence.
I feel that the Supreme Court’s decision was not capricious but well deliberated and ethical. Upon reaching this decision, the Court addressed the history of abortion, personal liberty’s and rights, attempted to qualify ambiguous terms such as personhood and viability, and recognized States rights and obligation in protecting potential life. Portions of this ruling have been challenged from time to time such as personhood beginning at conception and viability occurring prior to 24 weeks. However, the Court’s ruling has stood the test of time for over 36 years. This is a testament to the knowledge and deliberation incorporated into their decision.
I do not envy those that had to make this vastly controversial, yet unfortunately necessary decision in this historical case. Setting my person views aside, I read and re-read through the courts decision for Roe v. Wade “free of emotion and of predilection”. I do believe that the court had the best interest of all in mind as they deliberated on the rights of a person, and how to define personhood. This is evident, as they stated “We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires.” Either way you view it their conclusion would be erroneous, due to infinitely diverse views on life and when it starts, who has the right to make the choice and when.
The court defined personhood to be at the most viable time in the life of a fetus; which as determined to be around 24-28 weeks. This was determined after consulting medical professionals for guidance in the development of a fetus. It is reasonable to believe that a fetus could survive outside the womb with little or no support therefore holds the rights and privileges afforded by the constitution. I appreciate that the courts took into consideration the mothers health, giving her the option to protect her life at all costs even during the 24-28 weeks. Furthermore, the courts decision on personhood and defining the three stages of development on the fetus appears to be cautiously and carefully thought-out. I believe that the court was ethical in making the decision.
I did not find the court to be impulsive in the decision with Roe v. Wade. In fact I found just the opposite. As I was reading through the courts decision I had a sense that this was difficult and weighed heavily on their minds. They were careful in the wording, studied the history of abortion -not only in this millennia but also in ancient times, sought medical advice, and took into consideration the health and well being of the mother and interest in the life of a viable fetus. I believe that they felt they were being responsible and ethical in their decision.
The case of Roe v Wade in 1973 is about a woman (Roe), who wanted to have a legal abortion. She believed it was unfair to not be able to make decisions over her own body in a safe and legal way and took it case to court. Roe won the case, but the court put down certain laws that need to be followed in order to be able to get a legal and safe abortion.
The court defined personhood as “the point when the fetus is able to live outside of the mother’s womb”. This is usually, somewhere between 24 to 28 weeks into the pregnancy. I believe the court took this issue seriously and put down some standards that shouldn’t be that hard to follow if somebody was looking into getting an abortion. They have three main rules and they all seem to pertain to the mother’s health. The court is ensuring that the abortion is SAFE. If the pregnancy is at a more advanced stage than the 24 to 28 weeks and the mother would like to get an abortion. It needs to be determined by medical physician and make an appropriate decision to keep the mother safe.
In the case Roe v. Wade, the court had reviewed many records and found out that laws in the past viewed personhood happened between 18 to 20 weeks when the first “quick” occurred. Nowadays, the court says that the Constitution implies personhood occur after birth. Viability only occurs when the fetus can live outside the womb which means from 24 to 28 weeks. In addition, the court also considered about privacy. The court ruled that privacy does include the decision of abortion, but the mother does not have absolute power. The state does have some rights to regulate it. “State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.” The state also emphasizes that the mother can have abortion in first trimester, second trimester with some regulations, or state can prevent abortion to protect life after the point of viability. In term of obligation, the state is allowed to regulate after the first trimester as long as the regulations are related to the maternal health. Moreover, the state also has the right to protect life and outlaw abortion after the point of viability.
The court had review many documents such as the ancient attitudes, the Hippocratic oath, the common law, the English statutory law, the American law, the position of the American Medical Association, the position of the American Public Health Association, the position of the American Bar Association, and many related cases. Because the court had put time and effort in researching, I think that they made an ethical decision. In addition, the court made a careful decision in this case because not only the court considered about the rights of the mother, but also deliberate on the rights of a potential life. It is a really controversial topic, so the decision needs to be fair. Based on all of the reasons and considerations in the article, I think the court made a truly justified decision that can solve the problem on both sides.
In the decision on Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court stated many things about personhood, privacy state rights and obligations. The appellate stated about personhood that the fetus is a person covered by the 14th amendment. Proving many facts about the development of the fetus the appellate supported that the fetus is a person. But if the fetus is known as a person the appellants case would have subside and then the fetus would be considered a person under the 14th amendment and the fetus would have been granted the right to live. It was then established that no case should be decided whether or not the fetus is a person within the Fourteenth amendment. When looked under the Constitution the word person refers as to citizens born in the United States. As for many the word person does not entitle the unborn when it is stated in the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court stated many things about privacy when it comes to abortions. They stated that since the concept of personal liberty and restrictions of a state is found under the 14th amendment that it is broad enough to let a women decide whether or not they want their baby, and that the State has no say when it comes to her decision. When it comes to having absolute privacy on when to terminate a pregnancy the Supreme Court stated that the State does have a say in regulating restrictions. Therefore the right for privacy is not absolute because the State can restrict women in terminating her pregnancy when it comes to safety and protecting a life so it is limited to a certain point. So the Supreme Court decided that the State has the right to protect health, potential life, and is dominant enough and that it is a justifiable to give regulation.
I truly believe that the Supreme Court was carefully considered and reasoning in its decision. I say this because they went thoroughly and carefully through every aspect when it comes to abortion. They went through the important parts of it. They went through the history of abortion and they stated all the cases that related to this case. Even though it was a complicated case the final decision made was really important because it gave women the right to end a pregnancy. In the decision the State does have a say when it comes to ending a pregnancy, after the 2nd trimester and on the 3rd trimester the state can enact strict regulations to save the fetus. In the other hand in the 1st trimester of pregnancy the women has the total control to make the decision of aborting.
Roe v. Wade was a national debate that still continues today. It’s considered a land mark case regarding the decision of abortion. The courts held the mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “Point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.” I agree with this ruling. Everything has a deadline, Roe v. Wade, simply defined a legal deadline regarding abortion. I’m certainly not for abortion I am pro-choice and agree for the health of the mother and for the sake of the fetus that the decision needs to be made way before or within that 28 week bracket or “viability” timeline. I know there may be different reason for prolonging a procedure and others are just plain negligent there is really absolutely no reason to even wait that long. I’ve also heard that some babies have actually survived an abortion and have to live their lives with burn marks, major defects and feeling rejected knowing that they were not wanted. Ultimately, I agree with the outcome of the ruling that shaped national politics as a whole. A decision needs to be made early for the health and safety of the mother and for the fetus.
In regards to the issue pertaining to “personhood” some philosophers argue that even though a fetus is human it doesn’t meet certain criteria of personhood and since a fetus is not a person it doesn’t have a right to life. In the sense human is a factual term and person is an evaluative term. In my opinion the court ruled fair giving at least a little peace to both sides involved in the dispute in which they came up with a marker determining when a fetus becomes a person.
Within the Fourteenth amendment there is no real determination on personhood or real definition or term for when personhood begins. The constitution made three references to person: the first reference refers to a person as a citizen or person born or naturalized in the United States, the second reference refers to the Equal Protection Clause and lastly the term person was used as a qualification for Senators and Representatives. So the court decided on a point in which a fetus becomes viable. The court defines viability as ‘the capacity for a fetus to survive outside the womb even for a second after birth.” The Supreme Court set viability for 28 weeks but stated it may occur as early as 24 weeks.
The court identified a Constitutional Right to Privacy which would have to be weighed against the states interests, the court concluded that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Since those trained in medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any concensus in regards to when life actually begins the court explained that the trimesters of pregnancy are very relevant to the weight of the factors in the balancing test. The court declared that during the first trimester the state cannot restrict a woman’s right to an abortion in any way, during the second trimester the state may only regulate the abortion procedure “in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.” During the third trimester the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit, when the fetus is viable (‘except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, or for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”)
I feel the court was consistent and fair in its ruling because it gives woman a choice and a sense of freedom. A man will never understand what it’s like to carry and take care of a child, so I feel the decision should be strictly up to the mother; however I agree with the viability markers.
In the 1973 Supreme Courts Case against Roe v Wade, the courts went to fine details in defining their description of personhood. This description is a very sensitive and difficult question. With the professional and scientific research, the fine lines fall from when the fetus becomes “viable” or a person. The first recognizable movement of the embryo or fetus, appearing usually from the 16th to 18th weeks of pregnancy, and where the fetus become viable is usually placed at 24-28 weeks. The courts I feel went to great detail to make sure they were covering all their obligations. They ruled an abortion must be performed by a licensed physician, in a licensed physician office or medical facility/hospital, which is approved by the Department of Health; also any women can have an abortion, if advice by a physician within 20 weeks after the beginning of the pregnancy; or after 20 weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would seriously impair the physical or mental health of the mother, and the child would be born with a live threatening physical or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. This topic is very touchy subject, and I believe that the Supreme Court was very ethical in their decision. They consider the rights of both the mother and also to protect the life of the baby after the point of viability.
According to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, personhood is defended from the gradient point of view that the fetus becomes more of a person as it develops; also that personhood is not an all-or-nothing but admits of degree. In the first trimester the decision is left up to the mother, maternal health is a concern, an abortion is too risky during the second trimester, and in the third trimester, only after viability (between 24 and 28 weeks) and for preservation the life or health the mother. The privacy issue was decided bases the previous decision in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) where it was ruled that a couple had the right to privacy to receive birth control pills, the supreme court ruled this same right extended to the right of a woman to choose to continue or terminate a pregnancy. In deciding the ruling in Roe v. Wade the justices not only studied the history of the abortion laws abroad and in the united states which gave reason for criminalizing of abortions based on quickening in which the time frame unclear as to when a child was quick or quickening. They considered medical history, in the 1900 the procedure was considered hazardous for mother but the justices claimed the previous laws were also out dated in that new medical technology like aseptic and antibiotics made the procedure much safer for the mother, they also considered the history of men attitude towards pregnant women. This subject was intensely researched by the court which is why I believe this case was carefully considered and reasoning sound. As for the Supreme Court decision concerning the states include they could forbid abortion but it is not necessary, they can legalize abortions at any time before birth, and they can allow abortions after viability to preserve the life of the mother or protect her health.
The Supreme Court claims that personhood is at “point at which the fetus becomes viable” which it at about 7 months into the pregnancy. In the Roe v. Wade they bring up the Thirteenth Amendment that deals with women rights in a pregnancy and with their privacy too. I don’t think that the Supreme Court was capricious with its decision. Giving a pregnant women the choice of abortion is doing the right thing when it comes to the freedoms mentioned in the Constitution. Privacy rights should be the right to choose abortion, even if its not because the mother is under risk or for a rape reason. When it comes to personhood, there is no actual right answer. It is different for everyone on where they believe life begins. The Supreme Court decided on a certain time where they believe is valid personhood, and it seems reasonable to me.
Even back in 1973 one can observe how the Supreme Court was made an ocean of doubts when it came to the subject of abortion. It’s been more than three decades and we still don’t know how ‘personhood’ is properly defined. When does a developing organism turn into a human being? For that we might never have a clear answer but we take a shot and throw our best assumptions (because that’s what we do in the absence of answers) just like the Supreme Court did in the milestone case of Roe v. Wade. The conclusion was that personhood is determined by viability of the fetus which ultimately has the capacity of surviving outside the mother’s womb with little or no medical aid at all. This point of viability is presumed to be met at 28 weeks after conception, but there are exceptions when it can happen as early as 24 weeks. This period of time in particular influences how much privacy a pregnant woman has, and how privacy is lost as the pregnancy reaches an advanced development. It was ruled by the Supreme Court that during the first trimester of pregnancy the woman has the right of considering a legal abortion if she sees it as the best option. For the second trimester there are similar circumstances as the woman still has the choice but the State might now consider the health of the mother and the potential viability of the fetus, therefore, decreeing stricter regulations. For the final trimester the State might ban abortion unless the mother’s health is at risk due to pregnancy. They are convinced about the potential life of the fetus around this period and all decisions by this time are made thinking about the preservation of this life. In the end, I think that the Supreme Court was fair with the decision. I believe they gave it a lot of thought and recurred to historical records of similar cases. Moreover, it seems they analyzed the situation from many perspectives: medical, philosophical, religious. In conclusion, the main interests of the decision are the health of the pregnant woman and the preservation of life of the viable fetus.
In the court case of Roe vs. Wade the supreme court pass the law that state that a woman for any reason can get an abortion up until the fetus is viable” looks like a human being”. The fetus start to look like a baby some where around week 18 to 20 so the law is usually for woman to have an abortion within the first trimester, which make the law maker feel more comfortable in their pursuit to personhood . I feel like we can not determine when someone becomes a “person” but this makes the law-maker feel that allowing a woman to have an abortion up until the period where the fetus look like a baby is fair. Also giving her the option to have a abortion for any reason makes it comfortable to those our society. For privacy the court basically state the same law that all doctors should obey and that the code of the patient doctor privacy's act. Which is wonderful why would we have different laws for a doctor that gives a abortion then a doctor that delivers a baby they all should follow the same rules when it comes to the privacy of their patients. I think the decision made by the supreme court was good for that time period but they need to be revisited because like everything else our needs change. Now in our time we have more teen, pre teen and unwanted pregnancy to deal with so i believe we need to adjust the law to protect the under aged.
I believe that the justices attempted to do their very best, at the specific time this suit went to the Supreme Court, at being openminded about whether or not what a woman does with her body should be her choice. I applaude the fact that they tried to completely research the entire issue of if the Texas law was unjust and violated a woman's right to privacy as well as fair and ethical treatment regarding abortion. Considering the timeline in which this case was heard, the justices had to put aside traditional beliefs they may have held personally and try to find some semblence of fairness in their decisions about what the constitution says about 'person' and when to specifically identify when a person is just that. For instance, they speak to the issue that you are not considered a 'person' until after birth and any abortion done before 'quickening' is not a violation of the law with regards to the 4th, 5th, 9th and 11th amendments. With regards to state rights, I don't believe that any court should have any say about what a woman can and can't do with her body no matter what the constitution may state. Since the laws for what legally is considered a 'person' have never really been clear on that issue, it is something that we will continue to debate over for a very long time. I also believe that the only time the state should be involved in the decision a woman makes with regards to her body and choosing abortion, they just need to make sure that the law is clear that all women have a right to the same access of medical options no matter where they live.
Justice Blackmun delivered the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court offered the opinion that “personhood”, if proven, would guarantee the fetus rights to privacy under the 14th amendment. However, they went on to say that the Constitution does not define “person” in so many words and in all instances of use in the constitution the word “person” refers to postnatal. They state the fact that throughout the 19th century abortion services were preformed freer than today so they ruled that the word “person” does not include the unborn. The Court also said that state rights and obligations of fetal life after viability has both logical and biological justification because the fetus has the capability of a meaningful life. They said Texas had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I think the Supreme Court decision was well thought out and their reasoning was sound. Not all the Justices have to have to agree for the court to give an opinion. They also write dissenting and concurring opinions, which means the topic was discussed and research done, not only at to the history but also the current climate of the people. Even when the topics are very emotionally charged, the court uses the steps of the critical thinking process and removes their personal bias and emotion to reach a decision that is based on the constitution and the amendments.
Abortion is a touchy subject and when and to label what is right and wrong is extremely difficult. They court decided that a fetus could be aborted up until they become viable; the point at which the fetus can survive with out the mom/ live outside of the womb. They also decided that in the first trimester the mom can decide to do whatever she wants with the fetus and in the second trimester it is still her decision but the court can enforce stricter laws. In the third trimester, the court decided that the State can ban abortions at this stage due to viability. These laws are sound and I believe that they were made fair. These give the mom the chance to decide what she needs, it also allows her to abort the child if her life is ever endanger. To the mom this is an extreme decision to make and if she is set on an abortion no one person can tell her she cant unless the fetus has grown into a independent being then that is not longer her decision. I believe that this is how it should be. These were made in the interest of both sides.
Post a Comment