Roe v Wade: Womans Right to Choose - Essay Example

Roe v Wade: a woman’s right to choose Roe v Wade was a landmark decision rendered by the Supreme Court in 1973, upholding a woman’s right to choose.The Court held that a woman has a constitutional right and the freedom to decide for herself whether or not to continue with a pregnancy in its early stages.(www.bbc.co.uk). This decision in effect, legalized abortions rather than decreeing a ban on the practice. The decision raises the ethical issue of whether it is morally right to allow precedence to a woman’s right to choose as opposed to the rights of the unborn fetus that is completely dependent upon the mother for its own life? Is it ethical to allow the taking of a life, especially in those instances where there is no pressing medical reason that mandates a termination of a pregnancy? Is abortion wrong from a moral point of view? According to the religious beliefs, especially of Catholics, life is God given and therefore a woman who chooses to terminate the life of a fetus is in effect, taking into her own hands, a decision that only God can make. Abortion is equated to murder of the fetus and the woman who engages in it held liable for the act of killing another human being. Similarly, doctors who perform abortions were also held accountable, which is part of the reason why in some states, public opinion against abortion has reduced the number of clinical outlets and medical establishments where abortion can be safely performed by qualified medical personnel (Joffe, 2003). In pointing out the importance of the Roe v Wade decision, Joffe (2003) has described how, prior to the legalization of abortion, physicians performing therapeutic abortions were placed in an untenable position because of the fierce public opposition to abortion on religious grounds. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade has proved to be a boon for those women who are victims of rape or illness that interferes with their ability to successfully carry a pregnancy through to term. While earlier, it was difficult for them to terminate a pregnancy due to the public opposition to abortion, the decision in Roe v Wade has made abortion legal, thereby ensuring that woman seeking abortions can now have the procedure performed by qualified medical personnel. But Roe v Wade has gone beyond merely allowing abortions to proceed when there are extenuating circumstances; it makes the decision on whether or not to have an abortion solely the woman’s prerogative. Irrespective of the woman’s reasons for choosing to have an abortion, the decision in Roe v Wade recognizes the supremacy of a woman’s right over her own body. One of the major ethical issues raised by the decision on Roe v Wade is the conflict between the unborn fetus that is unable to defend its own right to live and the right of a woman to freedom of choice on decisions concerning her own body. Jarvis (1971) points out that most of the arguments supporting the right of the fetus to life are centered upon the contention that the fetus is a human being and not merely a bunch of tissue, therefore it has the right to life, which must be respected. But Jarvis argues that this issue is irrelevant in determining the question of whether or not abortion is permissible. She argues that the ethical issue at stake in the abortion debate is actually the question of whether or not a woman has the right to make the decision for herself, in regard to her own body, even if such a decision is morally not of the highest order. One important aspect that must be considered in this context is the extent of dependence of the fetus on its mother. A woman who is pregnant has the responsibility for the child she is carrying, therefore she is morally obligated to ensure that its welfare is upheld. But can this objective be achieved by forcing her to carry to term a child she may not be emotionally and financially ready for? Forcing such an outcome could in effect be more damaging to the fetus in the long run than allowing an abortion. The Roe v Wade decision therefore rightly recognizes that such a complex decision is best made by the woman who will need to bear the consequences of the pregnancy. Recognizing her right to choose ensures that the woman herself makes decisions concerning her own body, rather than such decisions being dictated to her by persons who will not necessarily have to bear the consequences of allowing the pregnancy to proceed. Since the Roe v Wade decision legalizes abortion only during the early stages of a pregnancy, the rights of the fetus are also preserved. Paul (2006) argues that abortion is simply not a constitutional issue and therefore, the Court’s decision in this case is based upon the social and political context within which this case was decided. He offers the view that the abortion issue is not one that should be decided at the federal level, but at the State level, in order to respect the social context within particular geographical areas. But in the state of South Dakota, a recent move to ban abortion was fiercely resisted (www.bbc.co.uk), thereby indicating how strongly women in particular across the nation, support the decision that was made in Roe v Wade. In conclusion, the right to choice is an inalienable constitutional right of a woman to make decisions about her own body, even if abortion cannot be classed as a constitutional issue, as per Paul’s (1997) argument. It is the woman in question who must live with the consequences of her decision, therefore it seems only fair to allow her to make the decision, rather than imposing one on her. Applying the standard of morality to the issue of abortion makes it a very thorny issue, because it interferes strongly with the woman’s constitutional rights to privacy and freedom of choice. Different people have different moral standards and making the issue of abortion a strictly moral issue amounts to imposing a particular person or group’s moral standards on another, i.e, on pregnant women. The decision in Roe v Wade thus recognizes that the issue in question is not how moral the decision on the outcome of a pregnancy is; or indeed whether it is actually moral or not – the issue in question is whether the woman has the right to make that decision since it concerns her body, even if the decision she makes is not especially a moral one. The question to be debated is not whether the fetus is a person with life or not; pinpointing the specific stage when a fetus can be said to be human is irrelevant. It must be accepted at the outset that the fetus is imbued with life from the moment it is conceived. Rather the ethical issue that must be considered is this – since it is the mother that is the vehicle for the life of the fetus, since it is the mother that must live with the consequences of giving birth, is it morally right for other people who are not so closely associated with the pregnancy to dictate what she must do with her own body? Is it morally right for them to force her to take decisions which may not be right for her but which she will have to live with for the rest of her life? The Court in Roe v Wade has rightly recognized that it is not. References: * Jarvis, Judith, 1971. “A defense of abortion” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm ; July 31, 2008 * Joffe, Carole, 2003. “30 years after Roe v Wade: Lessons about abortion from the San Francisco Nine”, Abortion Law, ; July 31, 2008 * Paul, Ron, 2006. “Federalizing Social Policy”, http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html ; July 31, 2008 * “Roe v Wade”, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/roewade.shtml ; July 31, 2008 5 pages 5 sources Read More