“(a) For the stage prior to
approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its
effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's
attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to
approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its
interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion
procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to
viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human
life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it
is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life
or health of the mother.”1
That is to say that a state may
make abortion against the law in later trimesters., because, to quote the
official decision, the wish to protect the life of citizens grows with the
fetus. However, to quote: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when
life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine,
philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary,
at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to
speculate as to the answer.”2 If they do not know how life begins,
how can they speculate as to abortion? Could it be that they are unwittingly
murdering? Their own logic leaves the door open to such a possibility.
Justice Stewart, in his concurrence
said “Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right
asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”3
The constitution states that no
person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. Thus, if the fetus
is a person, than to kill it without a trial is to murder it. The above
statement makes clear that the court is not sure if the fetus is a person or
not. They even attempt at one point in their argument to give us a sort of
possibility that it may achieve personhood gradually.
The prevailing opinion is that when
the baby is born it is a person, few would also dispute that a person cannot be
killed without due process of law, to violate that is to commit murder. If a
child was born a week before its due date it would, in all likelihood, be fine.
In fact there have been children born at five months and still they have
survived. To say that they only achieve personhood at birth is a misnomer, to
say they achieve it gradually is to leave logic behind. If not at conception,
then when, and if we do not know when, then how can we ever kill it? If they
did achieve it gradually then we could at any moment be killing a person, not a
pleasant prospect, unless you do not mind committing murder.
Justice Rehnquist, in a dissenting
decision, addressed the argument that the woman has a right to privacy, and
thus an abortion. “I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the
right of ‘privacy’ is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here
challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician
on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as
this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word.”4
The mother cannot plead privacy to
murder a child of five, because that child is a person. Nor can she plead
privacy to murder a child five months in the womb, because that is also a
person.
Rehnquist replies to the argument
that historically abortions were fine by stating: “By the time of the adoption
of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, (the due process amendment) there were at
least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.
While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the
books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down
today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857…”5(parentheses
added). When the law against depriving persons of life without due process was
enacted, the overwhelming idea of the time was that “persons” included the
unborn. If it is a person, if you kill it you are a murderer. “We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal with certain
unalienable rights, and that among these rights is life…”6
“Even today, when society's views
on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the
"right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the
appellant would have us believe.”7
Through His Strength We Will
Conquer,
Andrew C.
Abbott
Notes:
1: Roe V. Wade 410 U.S. 164
2: 410 U.S. 159
3: 410 U.S. 170
4: 410 U.S. 172
5: 410 U.S. 175-76
6: The Declaration of Independence
7: Roe V. Wade 410 U.S. 174
No comments:
Post a Comment