The Roe V Wade decision keeps popping up in debates on the abortion issue. It should be recognized that the decision has created contradictions in U.S. laws. Your other laws do not use "viability" as a determining factor in recognizing that the unborn is human. They grant rights equal to those granted to a person regardless of the stage of development.
". . . but you want to force the woman to keep an unwanted child." Yet after "viability" is recognized, your laws do force her to keep the unwanted child. What's the difference?
"The woman should decide what happens to her body." I agree, but there is another body that is not hers. The other laws recognize that other body as human. If a human is in my care and totally dependent on me, am I allowed to disregard that human's right to life? If the human in my care is not terminally ill, may I withdraw care for no other reason than I wish to discontinue?
"It is not a person." That might be true when it's a embryo. As the judges observed, it could not be determined when the unborn becomes a person. In the Rowe V Wade decision, it was decided that the unborn is recognized as a person at the time of "viability", so the issue is: Is it wrong to kill the innocent unborn human or is it wrong only when the human is a person? Your other laws don't make that distinction.
Can this contradiction be fixed?
One last comment: Is the right to abortion on demand an example of the end justifying the means?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 26
Nature always responds the way the question is expressed!
The questions are:
1. When 2 cells become a fetus and when a fetus becomes a baby?
2. When can both bodies be independent from each other?
3. Our civilization prefers to save the mother, the baby or both when there is a problem?
4. Is there any economic problem which will impede the mother to take care of the baby?
5. If the baby feels "unsecure" any time what could prevent him from becoming an inmate?
6. In extreme cases shall we penalize the family and the future baby?
7. Is it better to have illegal abortion made while most probably sterilizing the woman or to accept well-done medical acts?
And even not everywhere : in a legal place. So, as for the kings of the 11 to 17th Centuries, a future President should be conceived in front of witnesses but not in a public space as parks or beaches. (LOL)
My deduction is that there is a contradiction into the Constitution itself: either we consider the day of Light, either the conception moment.
The courts are not their to force laws into a grand scheme, they are there to simply deal with the changes to the laws on a case by case basis. The judges are individuals who base their decisions on their personal training/experiences while (in most cases) following the overiding guidence of the US Constitution.
Neither the authors, the judges, or the mechanism for laws to be developed is designed for a consistency across all laws.
Laws are written narrowly for particular events or situations or political desires over genrations, to have an expectation of consistence is not a realistic.
As for abort, there are many levels to discuss that issue and no author of laws is willing to either be interested in taking on all of them at the same time in the same law, they just aren;t smater enough to do it and keep particular constituents happy.
The situation is contrary to what my law lecturers at the Insurance college repeatedly told us: "The law must be certain . . ." All us students interpreted that to mean that there should be no contradictions. We were so surprised though when we all tried to apply that principle to the real life cases that came before us on the job. Expediency, who gets hurt, who benefits, the power and influence of those involved, their agendas . . . all affected the outcomes.
On the subject of the arbitrariness of the "viability" question, the problem is that there is no scientific consensus on the question, and even if there were, a sizeable part of the population would disagree with it. The only possible solution is to fashion a compromise. The compromise is probably not the correct answer, but since nobody knows what that is, and maybe it is not even "knowable," (ultimately just a matter of opinion) it's the only workable solution.
Of course the extremists on both ends are unhappy with that. One side says it's murder if you scrape off a single cell a second after fertilization, the other saying the fetus is part of the woman's body until it's no longer part of the woman's body.
I don't think "end justifies the means" is an accurate description of Roe vs. Wade.
It is a solution to a political problem that should not be a political problem. It should be a private problem for the individual to decide with her doctor...and nobody else's business.
As someone said receently, men should not be allowed to vote on this. What do they know?
The difficulty we have with laws is that so many people want them to drive outcomes and at best they can do is provide boundaries to how we shold act.
The abortion issue is driven by those who either desire a certain outcome for the mother or for the child. The way the law should be is about how the decision is made and how the care is given.
Dennis, my best guess is that those who are appointed in any setting have been selected on how they are precieved, competence, consistency, ruling or practices, and if they are interested which mean there is a degree of politicing. Whether it is for life or not they influenced their selection and they will be influenced by things around them, more than just the law.
abortionists say this "Anti-abortionists claim fetal dependence cannot be used as an issue in the abortion debate. They make the point that even after birth, and for years to come, a child is still dependent on its mother, its father, and those around it. And since no one would claim its okay to kill a child because of its dependency on others, we can't, if we follow their logic, claim it's okay to abort a fetus because of its dependence. "
but at the same time suggest in a later sentence that a two week old newborn is "not physically dependant of its mother" who makes up this crap? without somebody there the fetus will die, THAT is PHYSICAL dependance, not SOCIAL dependence! without someone to feed it that baby is as good as gone. social dependance and physical dependance are the same thing in this situation, so a newborn baby should also be killed because it is dependent on others.
if a baby-killer has anything to argue with me about this case, than do so, because i am all for choices. including your choice to debate me.
I don't agree. Until a fetus/baby is separated from a woman via cutting the umbilical cord, then that fetus/baby is part of her body!
"It is not a person." That might be true when it's a embryo. As the judges observed, it could not be determined when the unborn becomes a person.
One can also make a very good argument that even a newborn baby is not a person. Indeed, it may be a matter of many months, even a couple of years before that baby becomes a person, depending on your definition of "person." Babies are certainly not self aware until their development reaches a point where they are capable of being self aware. And, who knows when a baby actually starts to "think", as opposed to simply reacting to its environment. The point is that it is quite arguable that a human doesn't become a person for quite some time after birth.