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 September 14, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I believe that the courts ruling is ethical. The Supreme Court took many factors into consideration before making this ruling. They ruled that it is okay for a woman to have an abortion within a certain time frame. They said that a fetus isn't viable outside the womb until the 3rd trimester and that abortions should be allowed prior to this time frame.It's not "murder" because the fetus is not viable without the aid of the mother in the allotted time given for an abortion. The ruling was carefully considered and ethical.
A woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants to do with her body. It's nobody's right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion just because they don't agree with it. This is ethical as long as it is done within the time where the fetus wouldn't be viable anyway.
I personally don't think that abortion is an option for myself, but it doesn't mean that it isn't the right decision for another woman. It's not my place (or anyone elses place) to tell someone else what they can/cant do with their own body.
Chelsea Holgate
I believe that the court’s decision was ethical. But this is one of these cases that will be viewed a number of different ways. It will always be an open-ended topic, with many different views.
I personally don’t believe in abortion, but in some cases it may be necessary. Honestly, in my opinion there are only really two types of cases that should warrant abortions. The first reason being, if it is a situation where continuing the pregnancy will cause danger, or mothers potential death, then with the parents full awareness, yes terminate the pregnancy. Second instance, if the woman is a victim of sexually assault, and pregnancy is the result, yes terminate the pregnancy.
Now granted, nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. But you have to wonder how many women use the “abortion” route to fix a situation that they want out of. To me, that’s what makes it wrong.
I believe that the ruling of the courts is quite ethical. I agree with the fact that a fetus is able to live and survive on its own without the risk of death until the third trimester and believe that a woman should have the choice to do as she wishes up until that point.
After that point, I personally don't agree that abortion should be done unless the mother is in danger.
I think that the court's ruling was well thought out.
Ultimately, it is a woman's choice to do what she wishes with her body, and it is not mine, nor anyone else's place to judge, condemn, or deny a woman that right.
First off with the constitution not fully defining "persons" and leaving the word to be rather broad, this marks the start of a long ordeal to define proper classification for such circumstances. The constitution solely defines "persons" to be, "citizen (being born or naturalized into the United States), or "persons (used in context of those who are representatives or senators). Being that no definition or classification for an unborn fetus to have independent rights in the constitution makes this whole situation very rocky.
I believe the Row vs. Wade case finalized with an ethical and morally sound reasoning; I do also argue that Abortion too late in trimesters or without life threatening results should be found morally and ethically wrong.
With this being said, it is ultimately left in the hand of a mother and her physician whether she continues with the forgoing of her unborn.
I do also view situations from another perspective as well like such circumstances as an unborn conceived out of harsh violent actions, and for those reasons I believe extensive counseling should be done to fully grasp knowledge of what risks and options there are for such situation.
After reading the Roe vs. Wade decision I think that the court’s ruling was ethical. They did plenty of research on pregnancy and the amount of time it takes for a fetus to be able to survive outside of its mother’s womb on its own. They also researched beliefs about abortion from ancient history to the current beliefs at the time to give them different viewpoints to help decide what was considered ethical regarding abortions.
The court decided that women have to right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and deal with it in a private matter, as long as it is done during the first trimester of pregnancy.
The Supreme Court said that the state rights and obligations for abortion were to allow women to use their right to choose to have an abortion during the first trimester. During the second trimester they would only allow abortions that are in the best interest of the mother’s health. In the third trimester the state would only allow abortions that are to preserve the life of the mother, should they have to choose whether the baby or mother were to survive.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. I think that women should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby. I don’t think abortions should be used as a form of birth control for irresponsible women, but for cases that require extreme measures. Pregnancies resulting from rape, or a baby that has severe health problems and would not be able to live a healthy life, are a couple examples.
I believe in the matter of Roe vs. Wade, as well as Doe vs. Bolton, that the Supreme Court was both fair and ethical in their decision. They took the arguments from both parties into careful consideration and did what the court was established to do: protect the rights of citizens while upholding the integrity of the law.
The right to privacy, by the courts determination, is broad enough to include a woman’s right to choose if she wants to terminate her pregnancy. They upheld this right by acknowledging that the state has no significant interest in certain matters deemed “private” or “personal”. They outlined various situations that are considered to be “zones of privacy” and that this right is assured to a person under the Constitution. They also recognized that this right cannot be granted without certain limitations and that it is within those limitations that the state then gains a valid interest.
The court brought to attention that the definition of “person” is not established in our Constitution. They outlined all areas that used the word “person” in the Amendments as well as the Constitution. The court ultimately decided that the word “person” is only used in context of those that have been born. They could find no suggestion that the word is used in reference or in regards to the unborn in all sections that were reviewed. They also established that once a woman has reached the end of her first trimester the state does then gains some reasonable interest in protecting the mothers health. Also, once the woman has reached a stage that the fetus can be considered as “viable” the state does have the right to enforce its interest in protecting “potential life” and at this time may even prohibit abortion, unless the procedure is considered to be medically necessary.
The court looked at the case without their own personal beliefs, morals, or opinions being factored just as they should have. I don’t have a personal interest in the choice that a person makes when it comes to abortion. I don’t have an in depth knowledge of their situation, therefore I am not in a position to judge. I would say that I fully agree with the court in regards to the rights that a person is guaranteed and the limitations that also need to be established and considered.
This case will continue to be a subject that can fire up litigation in any environment. The subject of abortion is as controversial today as it was 39 years ago. When I look at this case I don’t recognize the bases of this case as the matter of abortion and whether it should be legal or not. I see this case as a landmark in assuring our right to make decisions without judgment or conviction. Everyone is entitled to their opinions as well as their moral and religious views and beliefs, that is one of our rights; it’s personal and private, just like the right to choose.
I believe the courts decision for the Roe v. Wade were ethical. They decided a mother could have the option of abortion in the first trimester. The decision was made with full knowledge and information. Which proves having an abortion during the 1st trimester is ethical.
I believe abortion should be a very last resort. Obviously there are some cases that should lead to abortion, such as danger to mothers life, and rape (leading to pregnancy). I also agreed with the fact that its private. Because its something a mother won't be proud of. But i do believe the father should be a part of the decision. That is if the dad is even around.
The supreme court ruled that after the first trimester, the only way an abortion will occur is if during the second trimester, is if the mothers health is in danger. In the third trimester if the mothers is in danger of dying she has a choice of trying to save the baby or not. Basically she can sacrifice her life for her baby or have the unborn baby aborted.
Yes, i believe in the end it is the womens decision. But i believe to have an abortion she must have a viable reason. A couples ignorance is no excuse to abort a baby.
Evan McFarland
September 14, 2012 9:57 AM
Arlly Garcia
Abortion has long been a delicate issue not only in the US but also around the world. Although I am a devout Catholic, and my Religion states abortion is a Mortal Sin- as a nurse and as a woman I do have some strong personal views of the said topic. Regarding the case of Roe (unwed pregnant lady) who challenged the Texas law regarding abortion, upon reading the decision of the court, I believe a woman should not attempt abortion UNLESS it endangers the life. First trimester of pregnancy is very important. It is where the embryo /fetus building and forming begins, circulation, organs are beginning to function by week 11 (pancreas begins to produce insulin, kidneys produce urine). Although, the viability of fetus is at 24 weeks, and it makes perfect sense that most states considers it an abortion after the viability date. In my opinion it is still not an excuse for a woman to opt abortion. There are a lot of government programs available for an unwed pregnant mother, and if raising a child is definitely not for her then she can her born child for adoption.
We live in a Democratic Nation, and it is a right of a person to choose what is beneficial for her. But we have to realize that even before a situation like this happens a person was given a chance to choose and her wrong judgement led her to this issue. Iam not saying no to sex, NOT at all but what Iam saying is if Jane Roe was responsible enough for her action there are so many contraception alternatives available for her at that time. One may argue, what if she was raped? Well I stand firm with rape victims as well. Unless it cause harm to the health of the mother I believe that she should carry the fetus until term. And if she decides she doesn’t want to keep the baby then she can put the baby into adoption and have OTHER COUPLE willing to love and care for unwanted child.
In this article the Supreme Court had to make a decision on whether abortion should be legal in the United States. What trigged this cause was a case that occurred in Texas. A woman wanted to terminate her pregnancy. However, this was impossible because the pregnancy wasn’t risking her life. She just wanted to eliminate the pregnancy because she didn’t want the baby. Therefore, abortion has always been a touchy subject because different people believe different things. Some believe abortion is morally wrong, while others approve of it according to the situation. I believe there are certain situations where abortion would be the best solution. In this case the Supreme Court had a lot to say about this issue. Therefore, I believe that most of what they mentioned in the article ROE v WADE was indeed ethical.
For instance, the Supreme Court stated that according to the 14th Amendment, which protects the rights of privacy, a woman is able to do whatever she wants with her body. In this case if it involves terminating a pregnancy, then she has all the right to as long as the baby is within its first trimester of pregnancy. The court also had a lot to say about the State Laws that come with abortion. The State Laws mention that they follow the idea of caring for the health of the mother. Therefore, this means that if a mother is in danger because of the pregnancy, then they have the right to proceed with an abortion. An example of this would be when a baby is being grown in the fallopian tubes rather than the uterus. This can cause the mother to die because babies can’t be grown there. The space in the fallopian tubes is way too small and short in width. In addition, some obligations that were mentioned by the Supreme Court is that they can allow abortions up to third trimester depending on the situation, which ties to the privacy and state laws that were mentioned earlier.
I believe the Supreme Court wasn’t capricious with its decisions because all in all they are just trying to do what’s best for the mother, whether it involves having abortions or not. It all comes down to decisions of the mother, and the Supreme Court is just there to support the rights of the people even though Texas believed that that baby from moment of contraception is a human and has those rights a swell.
The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe vs. Wade was well thought out and ethical. They did not make this decision hastily, all aspects were carefully considered. They decided that a woman could, if she wanted, to have an abortion in her first trimester. All factors were carefully considered and they still ruled the way that they did. Unfortunately, by the time she had won her case, she had already had the baby. The supreme court ruled that a woman (I wouldn't call her a mother) could have an abortion in the first trimester, and the only way that a woman could have an abortion later is if her health were in danger. I agree with this, but I would also add that a woman be allowed to abort up until the point that the fetus could survive outside the mother. I believe that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or cant do with her body, it is not their place. The courts did research that concluded as to at what age a fetus could survive on its own. At this point, the child is a “person”, having “personhood,” and therefore the child's life is also protected by the 14th amendment. At this point the fetus cannot be denied life. This is logically sound, it protects the interests of all parties, and I find it therefore to be ethical.
I do, however, think that the actions of Jane Roe, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, are highly unethical. She had THREE children, all of which were given away. The third time around, she essentially rewrote the law on abortion, and then she later washed her hands of everything, concerted to Christianity, and is now “100% pro life.” The first child was from her husband and was later adopted by her mother . She told her mother that she was bi/lesbian and her mother disowned her and took custody of the baby. She later had a second child and gave that child up for adoption too. Her third child was the one that started this case, so she attempted to abort the child, had the child anyway and gave it up for adoption. If you don't want to have a child than use birth control. Her actions as a person were unethical and it seems that she made one mistake after another and later washed her hands of the situation; this happened repeatedly. In my opinion, she is an utterly, completely sorry excuse for a human being.
I also believe that in the case of rape, it should be allowed past the first trimester, up until the child is able to live outside the mothers womb.I think this because this is a special circumstance that was beyond the control of the mother. She should be allowed to abort that child at any time, unless the pregnancy is far enough along that the child could survive on its own, at which the baby could still be taken out of the mother but not aborted. I found within the website this portion: “Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.” I think that the word “qualified” is important here. Women need to have a decent reason to choose abortion, which in the case of Roe, she was stupid and irresponsible, and therefore without good reason. In such a case as that, it should not be allowed. This is contradictory to what I said earlier, and it is therefore unethical. But I also think that having an abortion because you are too stupid or irresponsible to have a condom or pull out or whatever is also unethical. So in the case of just not wanting a child and being irresponsible, a woman should have to carry the child and can then give it up for adoption. If she goes through the unpleasant experience of pregnancy and birth, she may be more inclined to take precautions in the future. This wasn't the case with Roe, she had a baby three times and gave them away like an old jacket to Goodwill; three times. Now explain how that is ethical? Everything I just said is not at all ethical, we have established across the board by almost everyone posting here that we cannot tell a woman what she can or cant do with her body, but at the same time, this approach breeds carelessness and stupidity. There is no accountability for ones actions; if I mess up I can just erase that mistake. That is not how life works; to me, this approach is also unethical.
After reading this about abortion, I knew right away that there was going to be many arguments about this situation. Abortion is a topic that can be argued in so many different ways and I feel there will never be a right way to defend it, because of all the perspectives. The court did a good job in looking up all of the facts about the topic and did a great job with there decision. In my personal opinion abortion will never be the solution or at least the correct one unless the baby dies out of natural causes. By giving the women a right to make a decision during the first trimester for me is fair. After that unless she has harm to her health because of the baby is just wrong. I agree that after a certain time the baby is finally considered a "person". Everyone's argument about that is that the baby hasn't been born so its not a person. That is not necessarily true because even if the baby is not born it still is considered a "person". I believe a baby is a baby from conception. When a driver is under the influence and is with a women carrying a child he is charged with manslaughter, which means the law is protecting the life of the child as well. Abortion to me is no different because the baby should have every right to live. Abortion is just a more artificial and superficial way of killing life. On the other hand I do agree that women should have the right to do as they wish. If they do not want to have a baby they shouldn't have to but that is why, they should be taught that there are other ways rather than abortion.
What I liked about the courts decision was that they made sure everyone would understand what they were saying with facts. The argument to me was clear and it gave me many perspectives and helped me understand where they came from. Women that make mistakes and try to erase it with abortion are the reason the courts have to make these type of laws. If they just took care of themselves and didn't make mistakes then no one would have to worry about this.
The court's decision was sound and ethical. The court ruled that a women had the right to abort her, so to speak, "baby" during the embryonic stage or the early days. The court said at that stage, any decision regarding abortion should be completely left to the woman and her physician in case of health hazards. During the second term, the court ruled that a State may come in and promote its interest and provide consulting and save methods and ways to abort the baby to the mother. By the third term, the State can not only come in but regulate and dictate the case and the reason given is something called "potentiality" of the fetus. At this stage the fetus could is considered a potential human, therefore, aborting him or her is unethical. As far as the right to privacy, the court used a clause in the fourteenth amendment as it's source which protects the right to privacy, even a women's right to carry out an abortion.
Personally, I hold the view that women should have the right to terminate their unborn or undeveloped babies if they deem fit. The only exception there should be is if the mother passes certain time frame which is usually the embrynonic stage. After she passes this stage, she's carrying a fetus that has the potential to become a human and she shouldn't be given the right to abort that child and deny him or her, a chance in this world.
I believe the courts decision was very ethical. I think the court took everything into consideration and made the right choice, on allowing women to make the choice of having an abortion in the first trimester.
I do not a gree with abortion unless the mother of the child was in danger when the baby was conceived or the mother is in danger and it's not safe for her to carry, but i am not in that situation so i also dont think i have the right to tell a mother or women what is best for her and her future.
Ashley Nechnaicky
In the Roe vs Wade case, the Supreme Court made a sound ruling in regards to abortion. They found that an abortion statute that forbids all abortions except in the case of a life saving procedure on behalf of the mother is unconstitutional based upon the right to privacy. They ruled that a fetus is not a person but "potential life," and thus does not have constitutional rights of its own. The Court also set up a framework in which the woman's right to abortion and the state's right to protect potential life shift: during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman's privacy right is strongest and the state may not regulate abortion for any reason; during the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the woman; during the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus, except where abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.
In believe that the court's decision was in fact constitutional and protective of our right to privacy. I am pro choice to a certain extent, I personally would not terminate a pregnancy if the fetus was considered viable. I believe anything beyond that would be morally unethical. Yet again many other women have different opinions and beliefs of which they are entitled to.
Wether a woman's reason to terminate a pregnancy is rape, religion, irresponsibility, I agree with the fact that they have a choice and the right to act upon it.
I believe that the Court's decision was ethical. They considered the Church's statement as to recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. And also the scientific data indication of what conception "really" means.
The State will respect the mother's privacy but not as far as isolating her during her pregnancy. When the fetus becomes viable, I too agree that it is up to the State to intervene on behalf of the mother and the unborn child. I like the expression the Courts used about according rights to the unborn. I believe this is the states way expressing the value and respect for "Potential Personhood", which means an embryo that's "powerfully on its way" to development as a person." written by Jesuit priest Richard McCormick, chapter six on page 125 in the sixth edition. He went on to say "how such interference with such a potential future cannot be a light undertaking."
After reading Roe v Wade I believe the decision that was made by the Supreme Court was unethical we do not have the right to choose whether someone lives or dies. A baby is a child born or unborn, you may not be able to see it. It doesn’t mean it’s not a person. I can’t see you does that mean you are not a person? Think about it, what if your mom chose that you weren’t a person and didn’t have you. People say well what if the mothers at risk or she was raped. Well the mom has lived a life all this time why shouldn’t that baby have that chance and she’s only at risk doesn’t mean anything is going to happen to her. That baby has the right to have the chance to survive just like the mom. Who are we to choose who is more important the baby or mom. Long time ago we didn’t have all this technology and mom’s didn’t get that choice and they were fine with that. That’s how it should be. As far as rape that child didn’t make that chose to be conceived but it should still have a chance to live give it up for adoption plenty of people want kids that can’t have them. It’s not that babies fault his or her father is a bad man. Don’t punish the child for its dad decision. Beside that the baby is part you to. Can you kill family? Can you kill you brother or sister or mother? The baby is family whether we like it or not, so I think it is unethical.
Jessica Sundstrom
Post a Comment