Human Abortion Dilemma - Essay Example

An abortion is the premature termination of a pregnancy associated with the death of an embryo or a fetus. This can occur spontaneously, in the form of a miscarriage, or be intentionally induced through chemical, surgical, or other means. All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, human abortion receives the most focus in biology and the mass media. There have been various methods of inducing an abortion throughout the centuries. In the 20th century, the ethics and morality of abortion became the subject of intense political debate in many areas of the world. Abortion is an act that I would classify as being immoral. Recently there has been frequent talk in many states in opposition and in support of the abortion law. Abortion law some say is ethically incorrect as it takes away a life of a fetus which is growing inside a woman's womb in a sort abortion takes away a life while some say that abortion is right as they see the only way for eradicating any signs what a rape victim might hold to. The Roe Vs Wade case of 1973 is not for off from fortifying the fact that abortion is real and deadly issue which engulfs American cause of freedom. Roe v. Wade, (1973), was a landmark US supreme court case establishing that most laws against abortion violates the constitutional right to privacy, overturning all laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. The decision in Roe v. Wade prompted a decades-long national debate over whether terminating pregnancies should be legal (or more precisely, whether a state can deem the act illegal if it chooses to do so); the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional adjudication; and the role of religion in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade became one of the most politically significant Supreme Court decisions in history, reshaping national politics, dividing the nation into supporters and rival camps, and inspiring activism. Opposition to Roe comes primarily from those who viewed the Court's decision as illegitimate for straying too far from the text and history of the Constitution, and those possessing beliefs about the personhood of fetal life. Support for Roe comes from those who view the decision as necessary to preserve women equality and personal freedom, and those who believe in the privacy of individual over collective rights, although the opposition to Roe often reference the privacy of the individual when referring to the unborn child. The case originated in Texas in March 1970 at the behest of Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, both young attorneys from central Texas. "Jane Roe and Richard Roe", a standard alias for anonymous plaintiffs, was used to protect Norma McCorvey's identity. After the initial lawsuit was filed, the case was expanded to include several other parties, including: James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician who had been arrested for violations of the Texas abortion statutes; "John and Mary Doe," aliases for a married couple whose doctor had advised against pregnancy. At the time of the case, McCorvey claimed that she had become pregnant by rape. She has claimed and rescinded her support for the Supreme Court decision. During the case, Weddington kept private the fact that McCorvey had been raped. The law stated that having or trying to perform an abortion is a crime, except by "medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The suit claimed that the laws were unconstitutionally vague and omitted the rights guaranteed to pregnant women by the First,Fourth,Fifth,Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments. In Dallas County, Texas the district attorney Henry Wade was the defendant in the case. A three-judge district court ruled for "Jane Roe", but refused to grant against the enforcement of the laws. Both "Jane Roe" and defendant Wade appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was argued there by Weddington and Texas assistant attorney general Jay Floyd on December 13, 1971. Burger proposed that the case be put over for reargument, and the justices, unimpressed with the first oral argument in the case, underwhelmed by Blackmun's opinion, and wishing that new Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. participate, voted to reargue the case on October 11, 1972, at the behest of Chief Justice Burger. At the reargument, Weddington again represented Roe, while district attorney Wade was represented by Texas assistant attorney general Robert C. Flowers. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues; his dissent was merely mentioned in the order without further statement or opinion.' An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standings. In the Roe case, "Jane Roe," who began the litigation in March 1970, had already given birth by the time the case was argued before the Supreme Court in December 1971. By the traditional rules, therefore, there was an argument that Roe's appeal was moot because she would not be affected by the ruling, and also that she lacked standing to assert the rights of pregnant women (other than herself) seeking an abortion. The Court concluded, however, that the case came within an established exception to the rule, one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Justice Blackmun's opinion noted that human pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process. "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied." Such a ruling was critical to the Supreme Court's power to review the case, since the Supreme Court dismissed the physician James Hubert Hallford's intervention and affirmed the dismissal of John At first most of the protest over the Roe decision came from Catholic sources, who had been opposing abortion and contraception for over a century. They were later joined by many Protestants. Eventually there were letter-writing campaigns to the Supreme Court. Pro life supporters argued that life begins upon conception, and thus that the unborn should be entitled to legal protection. Many conservatives and other supporters of federalism objected to the decision as lacking a valid Constitutional foundation, maintaining that the Constitution is silent on the issue and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the democratic process rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court. Some lawyers felt justification could be found in the Constitution, but not in the articles referenced in the decision. Pro-life protesters frequently picket abortion clinics, distribute literature and other forms of persuasion to women considering abortion, and have promoted adoption efforts to steer women away from abortion. More extreme variants of the movement have also developed; abortion doctors have been the targets of harassment and even murder by individuals who claim that by taking the life of an abortion doctor they are actually saving the lives of many human fetuses. However, activists who advocate or practice violence against abortion providers or recipients are consistently denounced by virtually all prominent pro-life groups. Some abortion opponents have claimed that there exists a link between abortion and breast cancer, and Texas has enacted a law requiring literature advancing this theory be distributed to women considering abortion. More credibly, abortion has been linked to some psychological problems and to a higher risk of future infertility. Every year on the anniversary of the decision, protesters continue to demonstrate outside the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. In response to Roe v. Wade, several states enacted laws limiting abortion, including laws requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions, parental notification laws, spousal consent laws, spousal notification laws, laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals but not clinics, laws barring state funding for abortions, laws banning most very late term abortions utilizing intact dilation and extraction procedures, laws requiring waiting periods before abortion, laws mandating that women read certain types of literature before choosing an abortion, and many more. The Congress in the 1970s passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding for abortion. Abortions are currently prohibited in overseas military hospitals, and the United States is barred from aiding international family planning organizations that might advise abortions. The Supreme Court struck down several state restrictions on abortions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but consistently upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980). Some academics supported the decision, including Judith Jarvis Thomson, who before the decision had offered an influential defense of abortion in A Defense of Abortion, printed in Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47-66. Several groups have also emerged dedicated to Roe's defense. Many Americans vigorously support abortion rights as necessary to women's equality and personal liberty. Fueled by the intensity of feelings in both its supporters and critics, the controversy over Roe shows no sign of abating. Justice Stephen Breyer delineated the positions of the two camps in his opinion for the Court in 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart: Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing the death and violating the liberty of an innocent child; they recoil at the thought of a law that would permit it. Other millions fear that a law that forbids abortion would condemn many American women to lives that lack dignity, depriving them of personal liberty and leading those with least resources to undergo illegal abortions with the attendant risks of death and suffering. and Mary Doe. In an interesting turn of events, "Jane Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a member of the pro-life movement following her conversion to Christianity, and now fights to make abortion illegal. In a press conference held on January 18, 2005, McCorvey claimed that she was the "pawn" of the ambitious Weddington, who was looking for a plaintiff to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. Using her prerogative as a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in a US District Court in Texas and have it overturned. See McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (5th Cir 2004). Her new stance is based on claims made since the decision, claiming evidence of emotional and other harm suffered by many women who have had abortions, and increased resources for the care of unwanted children. On June 19th 2003, Judge David Godbey ruled that the motion was not made within a "reasonable time." On February 22nd 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of cerotiari, ending McCorvey's appeal. SOUTH DAKOTA LAW: On February 24, 2006, the South Dakota state legislature passed a bill that was signed into law by its Governor Mike Rounds on March 6, 2006. The law purports to make performing all abortions a felony, including those for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. The bill makes no exception for a woman's health but does include an exception to prevent the loss of the woman's life. According to law makers, doctors who perform abortions for either health or life reasons will not be prosecuted. Its sponsors hope that a court challenge of the law will provide a vehicle that will allow the Supreme Court to reconsider and overturn Roe. This bill was passed without a referendum. Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty." Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society. The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 ,child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e. g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. SOUTH EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA LAW VS CASEY: At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance with the foregoing requirements; and 3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f), which impose certain reporting requirements on facilities providing abortion services. Before any of the provisions took effect, the petitioners, five abortion clinics and a physician representing him and a class of doctors who provide abortion services, brought this suit seeking a declaratory judgment that each of the provisions was unconstitutional on its face, as well as injunctive relief. The District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, striking down the husband notification provision but upholding the others. It gives guarantees as with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but may not impose unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion. Consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts: (1) a recognition of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose previability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure; (2) a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health; and (3) the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that's not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. In Stenberg v. Car hart (530 U.S. 914, 932(2000)), the United States Supreme Court opined "that significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances, [partial birth abortion] would be the safest procedure" for pregnant women who wish to undergo an abortion. Thus, the Court struck down the State of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion procedures, concluding that it placed an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions because it failed to include an exception for partial-birth abortions deemed necessary to preserve the "health" of the mother. Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death. There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S.113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that a partial-birth abortion might happen. Law stresses on a heavy punishment like on any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both and the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus. A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section. While I agree on this notion of those who say that this practice should be legalized only when the woman's life is in danger as in when she is in dire threat of losing her life. This being possible if there is premature birth. I do think a woman has every right to abort the product of rape, and would include the usual exceptions. I believe that the idea of a human or any living being destroying its own progeny is so clearly against nature that it speaks for itself. It is an evil practice, and those who do it are in some profound way sick. A society which allows millions of abortions a year, like the U.S., is in profound denial. I don't think we can deal with this issue by the use of law, though. Any law would have some loopholes, which would be exploited. Prohibition might cause more problems than it solves. The only real solution is the moral reformation of our society. Abortion is more the symptom than the cause, of a profoundly sick society. There are only a few reasons why I think abortion should be allowed. Otherwise, I think abortion is wreck less murder. 1. The mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy 2. The would-be-mother is a victim of rape 3. The pregnancy is a product of incest 4. The child will be mentally retarded 5. The child is of European race mixed with mongrel genes 6. The child is of a mongrel race 7. If the child is not healthy and has to be kept alive by machines/loads of medical care. (If known in advance, of course). It is unnatural to keep those children alive. It's nature's way of keeping the human species strong. Aborting for the reason of "Oops, I did not want a child anyway" is wrong and absurd. As these famous people out rightly put it: You are going to let the fear of poverty govern your life and your reward will be that you will eat, but you will not live. - George Bernard Shaw References: 1. Hull, N.E.H. Roe V. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History (2001) 2. Garrow, David J. Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe V. Wade (1998) 3. Together with No. 91-902, Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al., also on certiorari to the same court. 4. US Partial Birth Law 2003 5. Meaning of abortion from www.wikipedia.org Read More