Please read the 1973 US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Roe v Wade provided via the linked Cornell University Law School 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
6 comments:
Tareney Frank
PHI 101
In the Roe vs. Wade case the Supreme Court decided that abortion was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution’s ninth and fourteenth amendments. The court viewed personhood in the fact that they ruled a fetus is not a person but instead a potential life therefore it does not possess constitutional rights like the woman whom is bearing the fetus. The court demonstrated the concept of privacy by determining that the individual woman should be able to make important decisions about their own lives and only a pregnant woman and her medical care provider can be involved in a decision to terminate pregnancy. The Supreme Court decision to allow abortion was made by carefully abiding to the United States Constitution and the rights of citizens. The court's decision protected the Bill of Rights and all people. The reasoning was sound because the state laws in Texas before this court case were too vague and had little value to rights of women.
Trent Aldridge
It Was speaking on the topic of abortion. As far as personhood goes they were discussing when a fetus or child in the womb actually becomes a person. It is hard because different philosophers, religious people, and doctors have different opinions about when a fetus becomes a person and needs to be protected. Some people have tried to appeal to personal privacy. They said that a person is granted the freedom of personal privacy but that with a “person” inside of a woman that persons rights need to be considered as well. The state said that even though a mother may have her own rights of privacy, they said they have the duty to protect the rights and potential of life that the fetus has. So they are obligated to try to save the life of the fetus, unless it endangers the life of the mother.
It was hard trying to understand perfectly what they were saying but if I understand correctly they came to the conclusion that a mother may consult a physician and after consulting with at least 2 physicians and reason for having an abortion is found then it is okay. So the mother is able to explain every case to the physicians and they are able to make good sound judgments on their level. I feel they did well in considering the evidence presented because it is important to see how many special cases there can be and how exceptions need to be made sometimes. I feel they discussed to amendments, particularly the 14th well, to determine whether they are hindering or supporting rights.
Basing their criteria on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court concludes that the word “person” is not considering the unborn. A fetus, in a mother’s womb is not a person and has no rights. Basically, your personhood is your citizenship status. In regards to privacy, is limited, thus, not absolute due to the fact of the state’s best interests. This can be of medical/health standards.
State’s major interest is to protect women when performing such medical procedures and provide the best safety possible. It allowed women to perform abortions to those in their second trimester in a hospital setting categorizing them as inpatient procedures. Those in the first trimester, with no need to stay overnight would also perform the abortion within a hospital. Additionally, women experiencing medical difficulties can have an “early abortion” again, as an inpatient procedure. For their maximum safety, such “procedure” should be performed by a licensed and trained individual.
The state and its health department and other medical facilities should provide abortion referrals. Educating those seeking abortion in both contraception/sterilization, but yet, counseling should be simple and short not “delaying” the abortion process. Best of all, counselors should be selected from “sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians.”
I do not believe this was greatly considered because they fail to fully consider women safety in its totality. Yet, they believe they have set the highest standards to perfectly and securely perform abortions but do not follow on the possible consequences and effects for such. According to the verdict, it is sound because it accepted its reasons and conclusion to be true.
JUNUEE CASTRO
PHI-101
Roe v wade was a 1973 Supreme Court case ruling on abortion. Before the 1973 ruling it was illegal to have an abortion, except when the pregnancy poses a direct threat to the mother’s life. On January 22 1973 this all changed, the U.S Supreme Court decided it was now legal for a mother to have an abortion, under the 14th amendment, the right to privacy. Neither a state nor the government has any right to intervene in mothers personal matters. Witch gave the right to an abortion to the mother; with the firm guide lines that mother no longer has the right to an abortion, once the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, unless the fetus poses a threat to the mother’s life otherwise if the mother wishes to terminate the pregnancy when the fetus is able to survive the womb it would be consisted murder.
I think the U.S Supreme Court decision was carefully considered, because they gave the woman freedom of choice when it comes to their bodies, at the same time they gave complete consideration to guidelines to when aborting a pregnancy would be considered unethical and immoral.
Roe vs Wade was a case that was tried before the Supreme Court in 1973. This case was based on whether a mother had a right to have an abortion or not. They argued if the fetus was a person or not and who you fight for the unborn rights.The court was trying to argue that a fetus had rights to life even if the mother did not want it. When reading this case made me think on how many crazy laws there actually is. I think if a mother does not want a pregnancy then as long as it is with in the allowed timing it should be fine. I really couldn't understand why it was the courts business on why she had a abortion. After all the litigation of pros and cons in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is and was legal to have an abortion and it did not affect any ones rights.
nathalie
in Roe vs. Wade case was about how the Supreme Court decided that abortion was a right that every woman under the united states constitution. that every woman has the right to make a decision with her doctor to terminate a pregnancy without having to be a medical health hazard. they were also debating if the fetus had some sort of right to its life and so they wanted to protect the life of a living being. so they had to conclude this case with giving the woman their rights with having to break the law
Post a Comment