The landmark Supreme Court ruling that was finally decided in 1973 after no less than two rounds of argument before the Court, is a controversial topic that still plays a significant role in the politics of the 21st century. Pro-life advocates are steadfast in their pursuit of any measure to effectively flout the decision and roll back abortion rights all over America. One of the most often-used modern tactics by pro-life advocates involves placing restrictions and other burdens on facilities that provide abortion services that are so onerous that may are forced to shut-down under the weight of the statutes. As clinic after clinic is forced to shutter their doors it becomes increasingly likely that the matters of abortion rights will one day (maybe soon) reappear on the Supreme Court docket where the struggle for redefinition will have reached a fever pitch.
[Are you asking someone “write my essay for me”? Look no further. We are here.]
In lieu of that predicted result it is the purpose of this composition to assert further advocacy in support of the original, albeit delayed, Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973.
In order to gather a firm understanding of the precedence established by the Supreme Court’s decision, the opinions of the court and many commentary from the more visible advocates on both sides of the issue should be reviewed. In the intervening four decades of time it appears as if the intent of the ruling has been muddled in translation and the color of the majority opinion has faded through the years.
One part of the discourse on this incendiary subject involves labels that influence the perception from either side of the issue. On one side you have those who call themselves “pro-life” while their ideological opponents prefer “pro-choice.” There is still a third label that should be dismissed altogether; “pro-abortion.”
[You searching the keyword “ buy essay “? We are here for you when you need]
The term “pro-abortion” does not match any of the most popular platforms involving the issue of life versus choice. As such, it is reasonable to say that there aren’t any significant numbers of people who would even be loosely tagged with such a macabre moniker.
What is left are two sides who feel they are urging public policy in the correct direction equally. At present, the law of the land allows a woman to seek abortion services and disallows individual states from outlawing by statute or effect the right of a woman to seek abortion services in her state. This is as was intended by the Roe v. Wade decision and this standard should not only be renewed before the highest court in the land but strengthened.
[You searching the keyword “ buy essay “? We are here for you when you need]
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Harry Blackmun, took great pains in addressing each of the three most common causes for objection among the pro-life contingency. For the purpose of curbing sexual deviousness, to protect the safety of the woman seeking the abortion services, and to protect and prolong the eventual life in the womb. Justice Blackmun also, one by one, wiped those concerns aside as irrelevant to the case as it was presented in 1973. Those three reasons are even more immaterial today.
As a method for discouraging sexual activity, those who use contraception are not under assault by the pro-life crowd. If they were, it would hold up, this nation of fighting for the purity of those of mature status who would engage in “sickening” acts of sexual conduct.
The second reason, the safety of the woman seeking an abortion, is also not effectual because — as the majority opinion stated in ’73 —- modern medicine has rid us of reason to be significantly concerned with the welfare of the woman seeking abortion services. Furthermore, it is the duty of the state to provide access to medial treatment that would prevent harm or repair her health should she become injured.
[Are you asking someone “write my essay for me”? Look no further. We are here.]’
The third category of reasons to deny a woman the right to an abortion is an assertion that once conceived, the embryo represents life and is to be afforded all of the rights as anyone else would receive. In any other circumstance when there is question as to which is to be afford deference, the woman’s life is held in higher regard. This point is only relevant if the “embryo as living” is stipulated, which it is not.
[Are you asking someone “write my essay for me”? Look no further. We are here.]
Deference to the health of the woman leads into the final reasoning to strengthen what was forged on a January day in 1973. Pro-life supporters mostly support restrictions that would not allow for abortion services to be employed in the event the woman’s life is in danger, nor would they allow for abortion services to be allowed in the case of incest, nor would they in cases of rape. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson addresses the cruelty of this stance in “A Defense of Abortion.”
Thomson posits a scenario where a woman’s health were in such jeopardy and another situation where a woman was literally attached to another human being — as metaphor for the ties that bind in natters of parentage — to illuminate the cruelty that those who carve no exception for rape and the health of the woman from their rigid doctrine of pro-life. It begs the question; who’s life? For which ‘life’ are you ‘pro’?
[Are you asking someone “write my essay for me”? Look no further. We are here.]
There have already been scores or more cases where women were forced to grant visitation to the men who raped them because a child resulted from the attack. Imagine for yourself that you were brutally attacked and violated in a way that knows no equal. Then imagine having to carry the result of that event to term only to have to visit your attacker every month. Every single month for 18 years. What kind of life is that and who is “pro” that life? [You searching the keyword “ buy essay “? We are here for you when you need]
References
Thomson, J. (1971) “A Defense of Abortion”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1:1: 47–66.
Roe v. Wade. United States Supreme Court. 22 Jan. 1973. Print.
