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?
Due June 7, 2012
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
12 comments:
In reading the 1973 US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court, when speaking of personhood, says that no where in the constitution does it talk about a fetus as being a person. All the mentions of a person are referring to postnatal persons.
The Supreme Court brings up privacy quite a bit. They say that a physician is entitled to the privacy of making the decision if the woman is with in the law with abortion. Also, the Supreme Court mentions that the woman has more of a right to privacy than the fetus, at least up to 20 weeks from conception.
The Supreme Court’s stance on state rights and obligations seems to be that they feel obligated to make the sure the state of Texas revises it’s abortion law. The Supreme court wants the law to be made more clear, which should help to avoid further court cases. This will also follow the citizen’s constitutional rights more, giving them the right to laws that they understand.
I feel that the Supreme Court’s decision was careful and well thought out. This case has set a standard for many other states to have to make changes to their abortion laws. I believe that the Supreme Court knew what they were doing, and knew that they were setting a bar for other state’s court cases. Also, the Supreme Court does not really get the luxury of acting capriciously, for many are scrutinizing it.
I believe the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was ethical. They made their decision based on constitutional rights. I can understand, though not sympathize with certain beliefs that abortion is wrong, however I can’t condone laws that don’t do the right thing. Some times the right thing isn’t the popular thing to do. They took into consideration the length of pregnancy and fetal development and at what point the fetus should be considered a person and therefore have rights. I like that the Does, who were not pregnant, argued that contraceptives may fail, and extenuating circumstances may occur for which the woman should not be punished and forced to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy.
The Supreme Court also made Texas clarify their laws so that everyone could understand them. You shouldn’t have to have a law degree to know your rights, even in Texas. I think the court did the right thing because it was the right thing to do. Its decisions like these that give me hope for our court systems.
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?
In the Roe V Wade excerpt, the court mentions that personhood is debatable depending on background, religion, attitude, situation etc. For example, some people believe that the first account of "quickening" of the fetus is considered life and others believe it is not until the baby is born. I understand that many people have their views and many will disagree with me, but personally, i believe that after the cells divide and they are in their proper location to start fetal growth, that is when life starts for me. It is not even based off of religion necessarily, i just think that way for myself. Just like some people do not like to kill insects and some people have no issue with it. i know theyre not one and the same, but i just mean the idea of it. Although i beleive this way, I cannot and do not expect other people to feel the same way.
For this case, i do beleive the reasoning was for the most part well thought out. They did try to accomodate to the individual situations of the mother. The one thing I didn't necessarily like was that there was no need for consent from the father in any situation. I know it is a woman's body and she ultimately has the decision, and would probably do it anyway if she really wanted, but to me to give the father no option, does not seem right. I think since they both created that life and if the man is her husband than her should have a say or atleast be able to talk to someone about it. I also feel that counseling for abortive mothers should be mandatory before and after the procedure. I know a lot of women feel stuck, or wonder how they will make it, pay for things, sacrifice their bodies etc. I understand that the majority of women do not just go have an abortion on a whim. i'd like to think most of them really do struggle with the decision. Counseling would be a good way to help these women decide and cope with their decision. Based on the information presented in the case, like i said, for the most part it is ethical.
In the readings of Roe v Wade. THe supreme courts decision i believe is ethical. The decisions was well thought out and it gives a female the right to consider other options if they cannot go thrue with the pregnancy with a certain matter of time. I believe without worrying about religion that decision is right for the female to decide if they would be able to care for the child and as well as provide a stable home. Some cercomstances a female has to make a decision that is wrong to the world.
The supreme court made Texas clarify their laws so they dont have to find thereselves in court with similar cases.
I feel that the Supreme Courts decision was wrong. I am completely against abortions, unless it is harmful to the mothers health. I find it upsetting that people find loop holes through the constitution so that the law fit their personal wants or beliefs. As far as the view on privacy, I believe it is to an extent, especially when it comes to religion. For example if in my religious beliefs we sacrificed people, am I protected by the constitution? or will I be prosecuted if I were to do so? If so does that not violate my constitutional rights. I also agreed that the state has the right to intervene in a persons privacy rights when it is to protect themselves or an unborn human life. Although I do believe that women have the right to choose what they do with there bodies, but in some cases they choose to do everything that led up to the pregnancy therefore should take responsibility for their actions. With all the options of what to do with an unwanted child, abortion should never be an option, unless of course like the law states it's is harmful to the mothers health.
I agree with the Supreme Courts decision and find that it was carefully thought out. It was obvious that it did violate constitutional rights. Overall I do believe that it is a woman's right to have an abortion and what she chooses to do with her doctor should be confidential. I think that if a mother is not prepared to have a child or provide for them that it wouldn't be ethical to bring them in the world if they are unable to provide. Any measures that could be made to prevent pregnancy should of course and an abortion if needed. The fetus would have to be able to live on its own even with help to be a "child" so all in all I believe the decision was ethical .
Abortion has been the subject of much ethical thought from both pro-life and pro-choice perspectives. The central philosophical question concerns the moral status of the embryo and fetus. If the fetus is a person, with the same right to life as any human being who has been born, it would seem that very few, if any, abortions could be justified, because it is not morally permissible to kill children because they are unwanted or illegitimate or disabled. However, the morality of abortion is not necessarily settled so straightforwardly. Even if one accepts the argument that the fetus is a person, it does not automatically follow that it has a right to the use of the pregnant woman’s body.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that decriminalized abortion in all fifty states, Justice Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, admitted that "if the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment."
Do women have a right to make their own decisions about pregnancy and birth, even including having an abortion if they want one, or does the government have the power to interfere with such decisions and tell women that they are required to carry a pregnancy to term? Where does the government's power over us end and our own power over our selves begin?
I believe that it should be a woman's right to choose. I believe that the ruling in Roe V. Wade was ethical. I do not believe that government needs to be interfering with my body.
Ours is a culture where a pregnant woman's every move is increasingly scrutinized by family, friends, co-workers, and perfect strangers. People feel free to pass judgment on what a pregnant woman eats, drinks, and does: Is she gaining too much weight or not enough? Is that coffee decaffeinated? Is that a glass of wine in her hand? Pregnant women themselves may be confused by conflicting messages, even from within the scientific community, about what they should do, for example, whether it is safe to eat fish. As unwelcome as these judgments and uncertainties may be, they pale in comparison to what happens when those in the government decide to wield their power as state actors to monitor and punish a woman for her actions during pregnancy.
After reading about the Roe v. Wade case, the Supreme Court states that personhood begins at the third trimester when the fetus is at a viable stage where it can survive outside the wound. Abortion is band at this point. The court also gives the woman the right to privacy and reproductive autonomy. The child in the third trimester is also protected under the constitutional rights. I found the U.S Supreme Court to be very reasonable in making their decisions to protect the mother, the child and the court system itself.
The court had divided a woman's pregnancy into three trimester stages. The first stage the woman can have an abortion and the state can not interfere, the second trimester, the woman can have an abortion if to save her health and the third trimester, abortion is ban completed to protect the unborn child. This protects the obligations of the Supreme Court when to become involved in the pregnancy abortion.
In reading the Roe V Wade I feel that the Supreme Court decision was the wrong one. I strongly believe that life begins with conception. The Supreme Court referenced the constitution when speaking of personhood. But the constitution is not a document that attempted to define the beginning of life. Even putting religion to the side the fact is all life begins on a cellular level. The other aspect of the courts decision that I have concern for is that the father does not need to consent for the abortion. The fact is half of the babies DNA is from the father and the baby would not even exist if was not for the father. I think in time as we gain a better understanding of Science and life that the Roe V Wade decision will be over turned in the future.
The court did consider both sides of the argument, but the court had to consider the legalities and judge the case appropriately. This is what made the court's verdict just. The court stares that views on abortion differ from individual to individual and it is not within the court's power to determine what would justify a proper abortion setting. Though "population growth, pollution, poverty and racial [tendencies] are [irrelevant and do not contribute to your cause]", they are considered. The verdict states that they recognize the victim; yet, the court denies the victim's claims. The court made a sound decision and said that though their notions and problems are justifiable, they are too common and not strong enough to win the case. Though the court was callous with its verdict, they made up with it by trying to atleast resolve the issue instead of completely dismissing it.
The court did consider both sides of the argument, but the court had to consider the legalities and judge the case appropriately. This is what made the court's verdict just. The court stares that views on abortion differ from individual to individual and it is not within the court's power to determine what would justify a proper abortion setting. Though "population growth, pollution, poverty and racial [tendencies] are [irrelevant and do not contribute to your cause]", they are considered. The verdict states that they recognize the victim; yet, the court denies the victim's claims. The court made a sound decision and said that though their notions and problems are justifiable, they are too common and not strong enough to win the case. Though the court was callous with its verdict, they made up with it by trying to atleast resolve the issue instead of completely dismissing it.
The decision the Supreme Court made with the case of Roe v Wade was an intelligently produced conclusion with all of the necessary information. The fact that there is a point when a fetus becomes a human is a great argument and it allows there to be a wide spectrum of scrutiny. There is definitely a time when a fetus should be considered human, but maybe it should be from conception.. The only reason that I say this is that the fetus is a product of two human beings and is not a different species up to a certain point. This fetus should ultimately be considered human from day one. This sparks up a reason to deny abortion since it would be considered murder, but who then becomes the murderer? If a woman decides that the pregnancy is unwanted and she is not willing to take the necessary steps to mothering the child, there should be a way of encouraging the mother with support to continue with the pregnancy. If she chooses not to continue, it ultimately is up to her as the carrier. It is good that there are limitations to it's legality but it is extremely important with some mothers that they are given options since they may not be a fit mother. The supreme court's decision to legalize abortion was done with great care and ultimately made the most of the bad situation that was bound to happen on it's own. This way there are certain qualifiers that make it slightly more difficult to be a repeat patient.
Post a Comment