Roe Vs. Wade Essay Example for Free

Roe Vs. Wade Essay Roe v. Wade is a United States Supreme Court case in the year 1973 that resulted in a landmark verdict regarding abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated one of the most important fundamental constitutional right – right to privacy. The verdict overturned all state and federal laws banning or restricting abortion that were found to be incompatible or inconsistent with its holding. Roe Vs Wade case raised huge controversies. It is considered to be is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in the history of U. S. Supreme Court. It gathered huge historical significance. The central verdict that came out of the Roe Vs Wade case made abortion permissible for any cause that a women shows, up until the point at which fetus becomes viable or potentially able to survive outside the mother’s womb. The Court’s verdict also permitted abortion after viability for those cases, where abortion becomes necessary to protect a woman’s health. The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Roe Vs Wade decision prompted huge debate on several issues regarding abortion on a national level. Debated issues include whether abortion should be illegal; if abortion is deemed to be illegal, then to what extent it should be illegal; who has the authority to decide whether or not abortion is illegal; what kind of methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional settlement; and what should be the role of religious, or moral views in area of politics. Many people expressed their dissents on the verdict of Roe Vs Wade case. For example, associate justice Byron R. White gave vigorous dissenting opinion over the Court’s decision. What he suggested is that although one might agree with the court’s values and priorities, there is no constitutional justification for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the states.[1]   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe Vs Wade has been criticized immensely on various grounds. One of the major criticisms is that inviolability and personhood have not been satisfactorily recognized. The argument of some of the pro- life supporter is that life begins the moment mother conceives, therefore, the fetus should be provided legal protection. Other pro-life supporter’s argument is that, when there is lack of exact knowledge of when life begins, the best thing to do is just to avoid the risk of doing harm. The decision is also criticized on the ground that the decision has no constitutional foundation. The supporters of the decision, however, challenge this criticism by arguing that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation, and the justification of it could be found in the constitution, not in the articles referenced in the decision. In spite of having been criticized so much against its decision, the Supreme Court, however, struck down numerous restraints on abortion imposed by states in a long series of cases stretching from the mid 1970s to the late of 1980’s. Legal basis of the criticism   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe Vs Wade is more of a legal issue rather than a moral and religious one on the public ground, even if moral and religious values are strongly related to the question. Therefore, if Roe vs. Wade is to be defeated and revoked, it has to be examined on a solid juridical ground and have has to show that the decision has violated a basic legal principle, bound up in the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, a clear idea about the whole history of jurisprudence of America comes to our help in examining legal justification of the Roe Vs wade decision.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The abortion issue, on legal ground, is not actually a right to life issue; it is in fact a right not-to-be-killed issue. The Right not-to-be-killed is part of a larger right- the right of dominion. It is the law of dominion that is the basis of all constitutional government states. The law states that as a human being, one has dominion over his or her total person, as well as the free exercise of that dominion, a right given to him by the very Law of Nature. This law guarantees the right to dominion in any constitutional state. The purpose of all human law is to protect this right, to defend it whenever denied or ignored by any action of government or someone else. When one talks about liberty, he or she actually speak of his or her freedom to the right of dominion over his or her person, in his or her beginnings as a human being and in those stages of human growth by which he or she emerges into the human community. A human being emerges in the human community by the process of conception, i.e. conception is the starting point of one’s existence in the human community. One person has dominion over his or her person from the very first moment of his or her existence, and in the initial stages of growth, when one cannot exercise that dominion by himself or herself, it is kept in trust by his or her parents and by the law.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Roe vs. Wade, however, has given another human being, basically one’s mother, and rights over one’s personhood in the embryonic moment, a right that permits the termination of his or her existence. Roe vs. Wade has actually placed the right of dominion over the unborn human being in the hands of the mother, and it has been done under the claim of the right to privacy. Consequently, Roe Vs Wade decision has provided mothers with the right to destroy the life of the unborn. The right of dominion, however, belongs to a human being from the very first moment of his or her existence as mentioned earlier. The function of law and the parent is only to protect this right. That is the bottom line of the legal challenge to Roe vs. Wade. The Supreme Court gave its verdict unlawfully in granting to a woman the right of dominion over her unborn child. That dominion belongs lawfully only to the unborn child.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Embryonic Law, then, has been set up upon the Law of Dominion, the basic law of every Western system of jurisprudence and this Law states. This acts as the basis of any legal confrontation to Roe vs. Wade. It is on this ground that the debate over abortion takes place. The debate is not a Catholic or religious issue, but a human and legal one. Some viewpoints on Roe Vs Wade:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   While some reporters and journalists may argue that abortion has not been identified as murder by the law and therefore such an opinion is entirely based on the fact that whatever court decides is to be accepted or taken for granted and that is the sole law. According to Frank Morriss, â€Å"It is the same philosophy that dominates the present U.S. Supreme Court, and contradicts the philosophy that declares that all men possess certain unalienable rights given by their Creator.†[2]   Morriss also argues as follows:   Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"What is democratic about the majority of a nine-person court declaring the killing of the unborn not to be murder, or in fact not to be illegal in any way at all? Those in authority being answerable to nothing but their own intellects and will is not democratic; it is a dictatorship of the arbitrary. Mere opinion, whether that of a legislature, or the majority of a court bench, or in fact of the populace as a whole cannot determine right or wrong, truth or nontruth, justice or injustice.†[3]   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Some views, as upheld by Stevens Clifford says that the verdict was one sided –â€Å"The abortion issue is a national dispute, a dispute between those who oppose abortion and the members of the NARAL, the National Organization of Women and Planned Parenthood. At this point in adjudicating the dispute, only one side of the issue has really been heard, the views of those who support abortion. The only history of the question that has been examined, or even aired, is the history of the abortion laws, with an erroneous conclusion drawn from those laws.†   Ã‚  Ã‚   The annual March for Life rally in January 2008 took place stood against the least restrictive abortion laws of the Supreme Court. According to the President of the rally, Nellie Gray, referred to the judgment as the genocide pre-born and said, â€Å"We have a genocide because, after 35 years, it’s estimated that 48 million pre-born children have been killed†¦ So we’re coming together at the nation’s capital once more to petition Congress to enact legislation to stop the genocide here.[4] However the establishment media does not talk much about these marches.   Ã‚  Ã‚   After the verdict on the Roe v Wade case, the federal court has not decided in favor of pro-life friendly decisions and such decisions have been ‘virtually nonexistent’. John A. Boehner, representative of Ohio and the minority leader of Republican House commented, â€Å"I applaud the court for its ruling today. My hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nations laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life.[5] Analysis of Catholics’ standpoint:   Ã‚  Ã‚   From the very moment of its initiation, it was subject to many controversies. This controversy or debate led to the evolution of two groups, namely, pro choice and pro life. The pro-choice movement extended huge support to abortion and regards that it is morally permissible. On the other hand, the pro-life movement denies the access to abortion and regards it as morally wrong. Over the time both the movement gathered their supporters and often move to the court to attain legal approval. Following these two movements even the world seems to be divided into two groups. For instance, in Canada, abortion is permissible while in Nicaragua it is strictly illegal. Some of the nations even took a midway like USA where abortion is legal but it is constrained by certain restrictions as well as certain circumstances. Though the debate on abortion encompasses issues on political consensus, infiltration of privacy, religious and ethical issues. However the ethical debate on the permissibility of abortion has been most important with most number of opposite thinkers.   Ã‚  Ã‚   According to Natural Law, five primary precepts and corresponding secondary precepts may be drawn. Abortion is not supported by two of the primary postulates Continuation of human species through reproduction (implies no abortion, contraception or homosexuality) and self preservation and preservation of the innocent (implies no abortion).[6] On the basis of Kant’s deontological moral theory it may be claimed that a person should act according to his or her duty irrespective of the consequences. In this case, we may therefore say that it is the mother’s duty to give birth to the child irrespective of what consequences she might have to endure. Thus, sticking to her duty the mother should not deviate from childbirth and hence should avoid abortion.[7] This would certainly support he Catholics’ standpoint and their activities and involvement are appreciable in dealing with the case of abortion. Their activities have brought about mass awareness and at least those who are true to their religion and roots shall certainly be averse to abortion and also assist the Catholics in their sincere efforts. Although some of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle commended abortion, the Pythagoreans criticized it and the clause of the Hippocratic Oath would help support it. The Oath states: â€Å"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion† and â€Å"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.†[8]   Ã‚  Ã‚   The court argued on the basis of the term ‘person’ used in the 14th constitutional amendment. This may be stated as follows: â€Å"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word â€Å"person,† as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.†[9]   Ã‚  Ã‚   Interestingly, if we agree with Warren’s definition of personhood then we have to disqualify two kinds of born human beings as ‘person’, namely, reversibly comatose patients and human infants. Both of them, like fetus are bereft of any of the characteristics mentioned by Warren. Warren moves further to justify her claim when she justifies even infanticide as morally acceptable under certain circumstances such as severe physical disability or in order to save the lives of a group of other infants.[10] At this point it is clear that Warren is suffering from severe complexities coming out of her thoughts. First of all, if the patients in coma especially those who are reversible, may come back to normal life as it has been seen in several medical case histories. Then, justifying his death will be the other name of killing. Miracle does happen and it is not that rare to ignore. In America, a patient in coma responded after more than 30 years. If he had denied the right to life at the very moment when he underwent the coma, then it would be denying life a chance to prove itself that it is stronger than death. Similarly, with the enormous advancement of medical science, even most severe of the physical disabilities can be cured or a supportive system can be provided so that the concerned infant, even with his disabilities, can perform most of the normal works. In a very recent issue in India, a two-year-old girl child who was attached with a parasitic twin underwent a twenty-seven hour operation to be freed from her additional outgrowths and after the operation, she is alive and seems to be behaving normally. Following Warren, if she would have been provided with a â€Å"justified medical death sentence† even with the consent of her parents, it could not be termed anything less than killing. Conclusion   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Abortion can never be morally acceptable and it may be termed as the other name of killing. However, under certain circumstances abortion is a necessity. Therefore we may say that the decision of the Supreme Court is both legally and constitutionally incorrect. Often, after conceiving due to several complexities, the condition of the mother’s health deteriorates to that extent that moving forward with that pregnancy may only result in the death of the pregnant woman. In such a case an abortion could save the life of that woman. In case of forced pregnancy that may be out of rape, the woman must be given the liberty to choose abortion as she has been forced to carry that baby. In conclusion, we may say that a fetus is a seed of life, yet to flourish and see the lights of the sun. It has not come at its own will and the people involved knew at some point that it might happen. We cannot offer life and so we do not have the right to take it away. Moral or ethical justification of abortion seems to be a ‘Reverie of Poor Susan’ that can never be accepted under any justification. The catholic protests and the rallies have succeeded to some extent in awakening the consciousness of the media and the mass.    References 1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Abortion and Ethical Theory† (2008), retrieved on May 29, 2008, from: http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=775z=62 Clifford, S. (2008) â€Å"ROE v. WADE: the Catholic Dilemma†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/stevens4.htm Clifford, S. (2008) â€Å"The Rights Of The Unborn†, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/therightsoftheunborn.htm#basis Mass, W. (2007), â€Å"Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/3526 Morriss, F.(2008) â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 Newman, A.(2008) â€Å"March for Life in D.C. Gets little Media Coverage†, The New American, retrieved on May 29, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/6955   Ã¢â‚¬Å"Supplemental Notes on Kant†, (1999), retrieved on March 25, 2008 from: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/205/205-sup-kant.htm Sungenis, R.A. (1993) â€Å"Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International†, retrieved on March 25, 2008 from: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm â€Å"U.S. Supreme Court: Doe V. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179† (1973), Find Law, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=410invol=179 Warren, M.A. (1973), â€Å"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion†. Thomas A. Mappes, David DeGrazia Biomedical Ethics, McGraw-Hill [1] â€Å"U.S. Supreme Court: Doe V. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)†, Find Law, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=USvol=410invol=179 (March 24, 2008) [2] Morriss, Frank. â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, 2008, http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 (March 24, 2008) [3] Morriss, Frank. â€Å"Court Rulings Cannot Negate the Law of God†, 2008, http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3122 (March 24, 2008) [4] Newman, Alex. â€Å"March for Life in D.C. Gets little Media Coverage†, The New American, 2008, http://thenewamerican.com/node/6955 (March 24, 2008) [5] Mass, Warren, â€Å"Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban†, retrieved on March 24, 2008 from: http://thenewamerican.com/node/3526 [6] â€Å"Abortion and Ethical Theory†, http://www.tutor2u.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=775z=62 (March 24, 2008) [7] Supplemental Notes on Kant, 1999, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/205/205-sup-kant.htm (March 24, 2008) [8] Sungenis, Robert A. Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International, 1993, http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm (March 25, 2008) [9] Sungenis, Robert A. Abortion: The Reasons We Should be Against It: A Critique of the 1973 Supreme Court Decision, Catholic Apologetics International, 1993, http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm (March 25, 2008) [10] Warren, Mary Ann, â€Å"On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion†. Thomas A. Mappes, David DeGrazia Biomedical Ethics, McGraw-Hill, 1973.