Pro-life demonstrators silently stand with “LIFE” taped over their mouths in front of the Supreme Court in connection with the ACA oral arguments.
This month, forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case Roe v. Wade. Their decision, on January 22nd 1973, expanded the applicability of the 1st and 14th Constitutional amendments and developed what is commonly called “the right to privacy.” The Roe v. Wade ruling affirmed that the decision to abort an unborn child is that of the mothers alone, up until “the point of viability.” Being viable is defined in the ruling as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” Therefore, unless the mother’s life is in danger, the government cannot pass abortion legislation regarding an unviable fetus. The provision applies not just to the federal government, but to state and local governments as well because of the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
The Roe v. Wade decision split the country into primarily pro-life and pro-choice camps, with several smaller camps somewhere in between. Forty years later abortion is still hotly debated and many questions continue to be asked. At the heart of the conflict is the balancing act between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn fetus, the role of the government and other outside entities, and the role of science and technology.
Rights of the Mother v. Rights of the Fetus
The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees five explicit freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of self-expression. Within those five written freedoms, there are other implied freedoms and rights, including the right to privacy. The basic logic behind the right to privacy and its connection to abortion is that if you have the right to say something or express yourself in a certain way, you also have the right to not say anything or to not express yourself in that way. Therefore, pro-choice advocates claim, if a woman has the right to be pregnant, she also has the right to not be pregnant if she chooses.
Opponents of this view are typically considered “pro-life.” They say that a woman should have to face the consequences of having sexual-intercourse and that the unborn child’s inalienable right to life outweighs the mother’s right to privacy. Some questions the pro-life side faces are: When does life begin? Does it start in the first trimester? Does it begin at conception? Is a clump of cells considered a life form? If even one cell was found on Mars we would consider it life, is a woman’s body any different?
A pro-choice rally in front of the Supreme Court alongside the pro-life demonstrators
Mixed Views and the Rights of the Father
Within the main pro-life and pro-choice arguments there are sub views that combine pieces of both. These stances include pro-life except in the case of rape, incest or endangering the life of the mother. Pro-choice including using abortion as a form of birth control or gender based abortions. Some pro-choice supporters feel that if a person is incapable of supporting the new baby, an abortion is a good alternative. One opinion that is often ignored is that of the unborn baby’s father. Is it purely the mother’s choice since her body will be affected, or should the baby’s father have a say in an abortion?
Roles of the Government and Other Organizations
The role of the government is another important thing to think about. Is it the government’s place to tell someone if they can or cannot get an abortion? Both pro-life and pro-choice people have a hard time with this question because they feel the government should not be involved in their personal lives. Should religious entities have a say in abortion? Should pro-life supporters have to pay taxes to pay for other people’s abortions?
Scientific Technology
Embryonic stem cells have the potential to cure several diseases, although further research needs to be conducted. Some people oppose stem cell research because they fear it would increase the number of abortions. Others support abortions if the embryo is used to further stem cell research and possibly help cure diseases.
Please share your thoughts and opinions on the topic of abortion by commenting on this blog post. Also, don’t forget to come to Pizza and Politics this Wednesday, January 30th, at noon for a great debate on the issue!
Join the Discussion
According to USA Today, significantly more Americans want the Supreme Court’s decision to remain in place, 53% to 29% (a surprising 18% of Americans have no opinion). Even more surprising is that 57% of adults under the age of 30 do not even know what the Roe v. Wade case is about! With so much to think about and so many differing views, one thing is for sure: the abortion debate will continue in the years to come. It has been 40 years since Roe v. Wade, where will we be in the next 40 years?
The floor is now yours…
Courtney Brinkerhoff is a Sophomore Political Science Major at Southern Utah University. Courtney is also as an Executive Council member at the Michael O. Leavitt Center for Politics and Public Service.
To me, abortion should be a legal equivalent of murder. A mom that aborts a child without its consent should be considered a first degree murderer. Abortion is immoral.
Obviously, it is impossible to get the consent of an unborn fetus for abortion, since that fetus has no means of significant cognitive function. This can also mean that the fetus has no cognitive function capable of wondering what life “could be”. All of the cognitive reasoning is done by the mother and people who surround her. Every cycle that women have, aka “the period”, is that murder, then? Come on, every single one of those eggs “could have been” born into some mastermind of the sciences! Yeah, I think it should be illegal for women to have their period. The counter-factual thinking style presented by many advocated of pro life are daunting.
Abortion is a topic that is based completely on emotion. Wether you believe abortion is acceptable or not how much logic did you use to formulate your view? I agree there are cases where abortion is acceptable but I do not believe the decision should be solely on the mother. She will need support and help from the people around her. So her decision needs to consider the advice of friends family and especially the doctor. When all is discussed and considered, it ultimately affects the life of another. When the fetus is considered to have life is not as important as the fetus will have life. The purpose of sex is to create life not satisfy pleasure. The woman made the choice to accept the consequences of sex when she chose to participate. Does she deserve a second chance when the fetus is not given a second chance at life? My comment is my opinion in the general view of abortion.
A Catholic Hospital has asserted that fetuses are not in fact people. And while I could never have and abortion, I am unable to pass judgement on those people who do have abortions because I have not lived their life.
http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
First, you can’t get a fetus’s consent because it’s inside of your body. Can you breathe inside your mom’s body? If you figure that out let me know..
Also, even if it could consent, no child would consent so that just decides your whole argument.
Second, sex is for both pleasure AND to create life. If you fail at getting pregnant when having sex, you don’t get told you did it wrong or that you shouldn’t have done it (if you’re married, for most).
Matthew presents an interesting viewpoint. Without a doubt, there exists certain circumstances when abortion is a option that is understood by many as the only safe and logical option. I want to ask those who are reading this, when do you feel abortion is or should be an option? If, in your opinion, it is never an option, please say so and tell us why. I feel that if a mutual decision has been reached for a couple to have sex, it should be common sense that the possibility of creating life is there. With that said, when exactly does this life begin and is it an acceptable choice for someone to choose abortion as a way out?
I really thought this article was interesting concerning one woman’s shift from pro-choice to pro-life. Worth a look.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/why-my-support-for-abortion-was-based-on-loveand-lies
This being Utah, I know religion, specifically the LDS faith, is likely to be brought into the argument. It might be of interest to some of you to see what the LDS Church’s stance on abortion really is:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=43de991a83d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD
Valerie, I definitely agree with what you have posted. I like that you brought up religion, especially the viewpoint of the LDS Church. I am an active member of the LDS faith. Today at Pizza & Politics, we hope to address the religious view on abortion. We hope to see you there.
Speaking of Pizza & Politics, it seemed like to me there was a common theme today about how the government shouldn’t dictate what we do with our own bodies. I would like to play devil’s advocate however, and point out that the government often plays a role as a spokesperson for those without a voice. Shouldn’t this apply to an unborn fetus as well?
One of the things that was mentioned in Pizza & Politics today was stem cell research and how it relates to abortion. I believe that women who donate the umbilical cords or placentas for stem cell research when they give birth should be able to receive government compensation for that; however, I believe that if a woman chooses to have an abortion for reasons other than a threat to her life, she effectively gives up all “parental rights” to the fetus and that fetus should be able to be used for stem cell research, but she should not receive compensation for that and the government certainly shouldn’t pay for the procedure. Also, if a woman has a miscarriage and wishes to donate the fetus for research, she should be able to do that and receive just compensation if she so desires.
The discussion today was interesting to listen to. I personally am Pro-Life, but I believe that abortion should be handled on a personal level, case by case. If an abortion can be avoided, it should. But if the mother is a victim of rape or incest or will have serious health complications, I believe she should consult a medical professional and family and have the option there to have an abortion if it is the best option in that situation. But if she can avoid getting an abortion, avoid it at all costs.
I am an advocate of pro choice, a difficult position to have in this region of the country. Many say (including slightly emotional speakers at the event) that every fetus aborted “had the potential” to bring knowledge and greatness to our world, that fetus “might become” somebody important. In science, that is denoted as counter-factual thinking. In rebuttal, I must state that sure, all those aborted fetuses may have become great icons in the world, but what of the potential life of every egg that women expend in their cycle? Or what of the thousands of potential life forms that man expenses when there is contraception involved? (Even though there are still thousands of sperm that die in regular intercourse, as only one sperm survives to the end) So, then, this “could have been” thinking style should be Ipso Facto unrelated to the question at hand: should mothers have the right to abort their unborn fetuses? This entire debate relies on morality and emotions, yet when it comes down to the wire, we should only think about the gain-loss ratio in humanity. One less child born into a single mother’s care would mean one less childhood of depression, one less child in hunger, and one less child deprived of attention. For every aborted fetus, there are a countless number of infants being born into a capable and loving family. Aborting will not put the human race into an evolutionary downhill, and it never will. There will always be a man and a female making a decision that a new life form should be made. Let abortion rise, let the mothers choose.