Monday, July 12, 2010
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
9 comments:
In the Supreme Court ruling the idea of person hood was addressed using the constitution. Part of the constitution that defined a citizen as a person born or naturalized in the United States was used to determine person hood. Based on the definition of a person in the parts of the constitution where it was mentioned the Supreme Court decided that person hood only applied to a postnatal infant. The Supreme Court stated these rights could not “with assurance” be applied to an unborn fetus.
With reference to the issue of personal privacy the Supreme Court did decide that the right of privacy was broad enough to cover a woman’s decision regarding abortion. They additionally added a stipulation that this right was subject to some limitations based on “health, medical standards and prenatal life”. It was determined that later stage pregnancies are subject to these considerations.
During the earlier stages of pregnancy the decision is between the woman and her physician. The state does not have rights or obligations during this period unless they pertain to the woman’s health or if some factor in the situation is risking the woman’s health. In the later stages of pregnancy (third trimester) the state does have rights and obligations regarding the developing fetus. The state at that point can step in to stop an abortion. If during the late state of the pregnancy however the life or health of the mother is in danger the state is supposed to allow the abortion to take place.
The Supreme Court had the interest of the mother and the fetus and differing medical and ethical opinions to consider in this case. To decide when and where the state should step in was not an easy decision and I believe the Supreme Court did not take it lightly. It seems that those involved used logical conclusions and objective view points as much as was possible when considering their decision. The Supreme Court not only looked at opinions on abortion through out history but also considered why the abortion laws of that day had been instituted. The stricter laws on abortion had been put in place during a time when medical and surgical abortions were extremely dangerous to the mother. Part of the decision they reached was that in 1970s the procedures had become safer because of medical advances and because of that the laws were subject to revision. Using this example and considering the other parts of the case of Roe v. Wade I would say that the decision was based on careful consideration and sound reasoning.
In our classes close examination of Roe v. Wade (1973), it is my belief that the decision by the Supreme Court is ethically and morally sound. What the decision essentially did in a nutshell was to establish why it is a right for a pregnant woman to have an abortion and when it is legal to do so. I believe the decision was rendered with careful consideration of societal views and emotions and the strong controversy it brings up. As Justice Blackmun stated in his opinion of the Court, (the Court has) “…awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature…of the vigorous opposing views…absolute convictions the subject inspires…(and realizes that) one’s own philosophy…one’s religious training, one’s attitude toward life and family” among other aspects all shaped how each Justice would rule on Roe v. Wade. I feel that the Court used very ethical means and with great deliberation arrived at a moral ruling. One of the biggest issues that the Court resolved by their case is, for purposes of legal abortion, what we might call “personhood” begins somewhere around the 3rd trimester. What the Court established is essentially that, when a fetus becomes viable to survive without the mother it has become a person. That designation entails great significance. Basically that says, in becoming a “person” the fetus has at that point crossed the boundary into the State having an equal interest in its’ health. At that point, the State now has such a commanding interest in the fetus’s health that abortion is no longer at the mother’s discretion. I agree with the Court’s ruling that “personhood” starts around the point at which a fetus has become viable, and that this occurs at the 3rd trimester. That is an all-encompassing judgment that may not actually hold true in every circumstance. However, to have a determination rendered by (probably) a physician in each pregnancy would be extremely subjective and possibly be subject to influence and bias. I think having the Court’s ruling is the best practice. One thing I found it surprising is that 36 states/territories had abortion laws at the time of mid-1800’s, the time of passing of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is significant because one of the major arguments lent to the right to abortion is based off of the personal liberties granted by the 14th amendment. Regarding the Court’s consideration of the Constitution, State’s rights, and individual privacy rights/concerns (1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and14th amendments), I feel the Court ruled within their capacity and overall did an outstanding job with the most difficult of personal/moral topics.
Where the topic of abortion concerns individual behavior is where I find people’s actions to be unethical. The specific situation where I find individual behavior to be unethical is when a woman chooses to use abortion as a form/means of birth control. I know from personal experience this is often not just a hypothetical situation. First, I feel that the body is sacred (not necessarily in the religious sense) and that reckless sexual behavior puts that body at a great amount of health risks. Also, the risk to the human body (even death) involved with abortion(s) is not ethical to repeatedly subject one’s self to. Additionally, in the case where abortion is being performed at a non-profit (like Planned Parenthood), then I feel it is extremely unethical to take advantage of subsidies (government and private) intended for use by those who are responsible. This is taxing on the system and driving up costs, whereas planning ahead and using birth control measures reduces chance of disease and unplanned pregnancy. What I find to be most immoral in this circumstance is the complete lack of concern/care for their own bodies and (potentially through transmission of STD’s) others as well.
Leonel Martinez
PHI213
July 16, 2010
During the history of man abortion has been a very controversial issue, debating on when it is legal and when it’s not. But in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court had a case called Roe vs Wade and since then, everything changed after that, that some people say it caused more bad than good in which I beg to differ. The U.S. Supreme Courts decided to make abortion legal in every state with legal rules. The states allowed abortion by regulating it by its trimesters to protect the interest of the prenatal life. In which I think the courts made a logical decisions. The states’ rights and obligation to women, was to allow abortion with regulations. The courts ruled in this to keep abortion procedures legal and in control. But still, even after countless hours of research by experts, people still have different opinions of when life begins.
Abortion has put a lot of pressure on culture, politics and religion. It has created very intense debates, if it is ethical or unethical to women and society. Some people say it should be the right for a woman to have an abortion, since it is her body in I which I agree with. But other say it’s only going to destroy the morality of life and society in the long run. There are too many questions that rise since the legal debate of Roe vs Wade, but I believe the court made a wise decision for women for now.
The church believes life begins at conception when the egg is implanted with the soul, but the courts say differently. The third trimester according to the courts is when person hood begins, because of neurological nerves that start to grow. In which I believe is right, how can something have life if it is not aware that it is alive. It’s a very controversial subject even for me, but I know the courts had to make a decision for the best for humankind and for society.
The decision of the court in the case of Roe vs Wade led to abortion to have a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. So it was thereby made legal and stopped all anti abortion law attempts. It was also then asserted in the Ninth Amendment as in the right of privacy in which I also agree since it’s in our Constitutional right. But there are still opinions that say anti- abortion laws only existed because of the dangers in the procedure. But now those chances have decreased because of medical technology has improved drastically in which I believe it has. Even if the law hadn’t change I think people would still find illegal ways to have abortions. But the down side of that is that I think there would be casualties because of women not having the proper medical care in proper facilities. In which I think is one of the reasons the courts had to vote on.
I think it was an ethical choice by the Supreme Court, even though it could change someday. But by overturning the case would give the government control over abortion and that would make abortion mandatory like in some other countries, and that would lead to more problematic issues. Overall I think abortion is legal because it’s the woman’s right to make any decisions on her reproductive system and because they have a constitutional right, regardless of government policy.
The US Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout the United States in 1973 with the case of Roe Vs. Wade. The Supreme Court do not believe that the human personhood begins during the first stages of pregnancy like most people do. In this case it came down to "Does a fetus Have Rights." The Supreme Court does not think that a fetus has any rights due to its lack of determining whether that it is consider human person at those early stages. The personhood of a fetus is generally understood to be between 22 and 24 weeks. This is when neocortex develops and it is at a point which a fetus can be taken from the womb and given the proper medical care and can still have a meaning chance of a long term survival
The Supreme Court focuses on women having the right to make decisions about their own bodies. And fetuses dont have any rights until it is old enough to have rights of its own. The Supreme Court on in this case decided that woman can decide for their own reproductive system which i personally agree but am anti-abortion because i believe that abortion is homicide i know alot of people will argue with that but thats how i see it killing of another. I believe everyone should be given a chance to live life and a fetus should have the right. The Supreme Court made their decision wisely for now i believe though in the long run it possible that it would change.
Yvette Ferguson
The Supreme Court says concerning abortion or the consideration thereof, that personhood begins when a fetus is viable, able to live on its own outside of the womb. That being so, around the third trimester of pregnancy was where the line was drawn and crossing the proverbial line in the sand and to abort after that point was considered to be criminal, a felony to be exact and a punishable crime.
The Supreme Court firmly clung to the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment concerning privacy and the unenumerated rights not specifically outlined in the Constitution. Though the courts were ready to consider anyone who exercised these unenumerated rights concerning what one does with one's body, an outlaw because these courts findings according to Justice Blackmun's court opinion to be " declaratory and not injunctive." The findings gave permission to the woman but still kept her bound by not totally excusing abortion if the circumstance was not a health issue. So the woman's privavcy was not so private concerning her body entirely because the physician still had some say as to whether or not she was a candidate for an abortion.
The Texas law forbidding abortion under any circumstance except for rape, incest or maternal danger was still very much upheld in the Supreme Court's decision. Considering the time and the moral views of that day, I think that the Supreme Court was very liberal politically in its decision. The Supreme Court rode the line and pushed the envelope concerning this delicate issue. For that era, with the strict moral concerns and the very involved state government concering the moral affairs the Court was obligated to bend in that direction.
The Supreme Court took two years to decide this case, I would say that was hardly capricious or whimsical. I believe the case was carefully deliberated, you have to think, the Court was setting a precedent, one that would eventually lead to legalized abortion. I think that the Court knew what foundation it was setting with this decision.
Every facet had to be considered and arguments on both sides had to be viewed as valid points. I think that the decision was reasonably sound and quite progressive for that day given the prudent times. Even though two of the judges still had dissenting views after two years of deliberating, I still believe the Supreme Court did the best that it could to be fair in coming to its decision.
According to the Roe v. Wade trial, “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy;” however, after reviewing precedence of many court cases, it is established that rights to personal privacy in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, these amendments imply rights in the areas of marriage, contraception, family relationships, and childrearing. Additionally, the findings of this case state that if the State imposes such anti-abortion on a woman that many aspects of her life will be affected to include financial, physical, and mental well-being. The court ruled that the right of privacy—although “broad”—covers abortion; however, the court case states, the decision is not without limits on the State to claim “interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life…” What is more, the court decided (based on previous cases) that the State’s interests are not great enough to override the decisions of the woman and her physician regarding abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Regarding personhood, the Constitution does not define a person; moreover, the case states that a fetus is not held as a person in the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the court case, the broad terms of the Constitution, a person is not considered in cases other than the post-natal period. After all of this discussion another problem is that the beginning of life has yet to be defined, and therefore, is defined as people/organizations choose to define it. I do not feel that this decision was made whimsically, as many cases of precedence were studied and referenced throughout this document. Moreover, I believe that the case was handled carefully and that the reasoning was sound because many cases of precedence were reviewed and referenced; additionally, the arguments were presented and refuted based on interpretations from the Constitution, and when the big questions arose such as those of personhood, privacy, and States' rights, such questions reflected the findings of past cases and the declarations of the Constitution.
In 1973, the case of Roe V. Wade decided by the U.S Supreme Court granted the right for a woman to have an abortion and have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. While this decision still brings both strong support and opposition, the case itself was instrumental in determining the rights of a person to have an abortion and terminate a pregnancy.
The decision defined personhood for legal purposes, that the fetus becomes more of a person as it develops, such that personhood is not all-or-nothing but by degrees of progression. Personhood of a fetus is generally understood to occur between 22 and 24 weeks. This is the point at which the neocortex (The part of the fetal brain involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and language develops), and it is also the earliest known point of viability--the point at which a fetus can be taken from the womb and, given the proper medical care and still have a meaningful chance of long-term survival. The fetus will be defined according to trimester and according to the viability(ability to live outside of the womb) of the fetus. By doing this the court established when the mother, physician, fetus and state would have rights concerning the pregnancy and when abortion would be considered no longer just the decision between the mother and a physician. The court decision decided that the law within the United States would be as follows. Trimester 1 (T1). The decision would be between the woman and her physician and the procedure would be regulated by the physician. Trimester 2 (T2) is almost the same considering that the woman and her physician make the decision however the state has an interest in the health and safety of the mother. Trimester 3 (T3) is unique. The only time that an abortion is allowed is when a medical professional agrees that to have the child the mother's life would have to be in danger. The state then has an interest to consider the health and safety of the mother and fetus.
The Supreme Court ruled that "state criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though 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." This action did not show that the right to privacy was shown to the unborn fetus, due to the fact that the fetus had not yet been born and thus did not have the same rights as a citizen born in the United States would have.
I believe that the court did not take this situation lightly. They considered many aspects such as the history of abortion, the medical methods used in the past vs. those that are used in present day and the viability of the fetus as well as the woman's rights to decide what happens within her own body. The court also acknowledged that while this was a very sensitive and emotional battle that women needed to know their rights concerning their reproductive organs and the that the rights of persons in general were not violated. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an embryo or fetus but embryos and fetuses do not have rights themselves unless and until it can be determined that they are human persons.
in my opinion i think that personhood begins when the fetus begins to have a heart beat i think that a baby or fetus should always be considerd a person weather born or not but i also belive that in some situations abortion is nessesary so i am not completely against abortion even though i consider a fetus a baby i belive that in some situations such as rape,incest,or a persons life being put in danger weather it be the mom or the baby and also when it is a minor in a child abuse situation abortion is their only option being this my opinion i think that (ROE) was wrong for wanting an abortion just because she was unmarried and prgnant there are many single moms in this world if she dident want a baby she should of used some form of birth control allthough i understand the states argument i dont agree with them because they think that an abortion should never be performed with no exeptions and i think that their should be some exeptions in some situations thats their only option even though i dont completely agree with their side i do belive that a person has a right to privacy and i dont think the should of made all her problems public i think they were wrong for doing that a persons rights should allways be protected
Post a Comment