There has been much discussion about Roe v. Wade, abortion, and weather or not it is "fact" that life begins at conception. (Or if there is such thing as "scientific fact" at all.) Also, questions have been raised about the Constitutionality of Roe. Unfortunately, their are no definitive answers to these questions.
Mommy, where do babies come from?
Determining when life begins has been a long debated question. And weather you want to believe life begins at conception, or if it is just a fetus until x trimester, there is a certified M.D. who agrees with you. And lots of them, on both sides. As for determining scientific "fact", I will refer you to the words of Stephen J. Gould PhD.: "In the American vernacular, 'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess... [F]acts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty... Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world."
It is a fact that this blog exists. It is a fact that that thing growing inside of a woman is a living thing. However, what is trying to be decided by the debate isn't weather it is a living thing, the sperm inside of me is a living thing, what must be decided is if it is a separate individual, or when it becomes a separate individual. I am fully able to support myself. I do not require to be "plugged into" someone else for survival. If, however, a fetus is removed from a mothers womb, then it has no chance at maturing into a full grown human without some other host. If I am in a car accident, and require a respirator to live, my next of ken, or spouse, can have me removed from life support. However, if I have a guest in my home, and the only way to get him out is to push him out a ten story window, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
In the decision of Roe v. Wade, the majority of the Justices found that Roe had power of attorney over the fetus inside of her, and to deny her the right to terminate that life would violate her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment. You may be inclined to say that, in that case, their is no possible way Roe could, or should be over turned. Isn't it just like the car accident scenario? Their is one crucial difference. If I express a desire to be resuscitated at all costs, as say in a living will, then that is the final word. Where Roe could be defeated is on the issue of consent. The fetus inside of the woman cannot express consent. Therefor, the only voice it has to speak for it is the equal protection clause in the 14 amendment. As for there being no specific mentioning of abortion in the Constitution, it was intended to be that way. The Constitution was written as a lay-man's document, without any technical language or anything too specific. If you read a standard law, like say one passed by the Senate, (the Patriot act is a good example) it is very specific, and often difficult to understand. The Constitution, however, was meant to be understood by all Americans. As for how to interpret the vague language, that is what the Judicial branch of the government was intended to do.
Roe is far from a clear-cut issue. Most people do hold strong opinions one way or the other on the issue, and I certainly encourage that. But, thinking that their is only one way to look at the issue is absurdly incorrect. As I have said before, the debate is far from over. And in the end, it will be the Supreme Court Justices who have the last word. Until next time, farewell and amen.
Cody Hobbs
5 comments:
Ok, clarifying here.
The saccarin was an example of a scentific "fact" that shouldn't truly be considered because it was done on such a grand scale that it would probably never truly happen, an example to discredit most scentific facts.
Comparing a fetus or unborn child to a death row inmate was based on this.
Now the idea of why abortion is wrong is because you killing an innocent life while killing a murderer is right because they were evil. Well if you look to the bible, we are born with original sin, thus we are born with bad on us, so how is it different? Just because we didn't have a choice in the matter doesn't make it any other way, criminals die because of their sins so thus a fetus also has a sin on it's chest at all times. So in the belief all life is precious I believe you can't support killing one sinful person and be against killing another sinful person in theory. Not saying it's a fair comparsion because it really isn't, but most who go this way are religious and need to consider these things as ridiculious as they are. I dont have beliefs, just ideas as crazy as they come off.I can change an idea if need be
Of course I'm an asshole in the long term of things.
Right, what you said was true,and as you said, the constitution was witten in lay terms and all that; however the Supreme Court was not set up to interpret the meaning of the constution. That's how we ended up with the legistating from the bench, the exact thing you're worried about with Alito. Judges were set up to enforce, not interpret what they "think" was intended by the founding fathers when it was written. Now the constitution has been turned into a Rorschach test.
~Virginia
Tank-
I see what you mean, however, the original sin that the unborn child will carry into the world is its potential, not something it has done. So, it is sinless while unborn. And if memory does serve me, and we must pull the Bible into it, Jesus does mention the innocents and purity of children and points out that sinful adults should consider being more like them. But back on track, a criminal, a convicted felon, what have you, looses all constitional rights once they've been convicted. The whole "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" madness no longer applies. Their rights are relinquished, a baby's rights, however are not.
Yours truely,
~Virginia
Though the Judicial branch has the most vague description as to what their duties are (Article three) it is accepted that congress (legislative branch)writes the laws, the President (Executive)enforces them, and the Judicial interprets them. And this is for all written law, not just the Constitution. Without this power of interpretation we never would have seen the legacy of the Warren court.
I'm sorry, but I think you have it backwards.
~Virginia
Post a Comment