The timespan between 1960’s and the 70’s was a period in the United States when immorality and relativism poisoned American culture on a large scale and allowed the attitude towards sexuality to be corrupted. The authority of the Catholic Church had been neglected as ideas of radical liberalism spread throughout the western world. This led to many practices, at one time recognized as atrocities, becoming commonplace and accepted in society; the most notable of which was abortion.
Jane Roe was a single, unmarried American woman who lived in Dallas County, Texas. She became pregnant and filed a lawsuit in the 1970's against the abortion law of Texas, which prohibited her from having an abortion. She believed that this law was unconstitutional. …show more content…
There were many notable Greek thinkers who opposed abortion. These include: Soranus, Seneca, the poet Ovid, and the Stoic Gaius Musonius Rufus. In Plato’s “Republic”, he talks about the ideal perfect society. For population control, he advises that the excess population be sent out as colonists, not aborted. He only sees abortion as something for when it is demanded of by the state, not individual desire. Aristotle wrote that abortion should only be used for population control as a last resort, and only up to when life was thought to have started. This is far from “commending” it as the court claimed. As for the Oath, the part of it which references abortion states the following: “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” The court assumed that the facts Dr. Edelstein gave concerning the Oath meant that he was questioning the validity of the oath, when in fact he was …show more content…
First in Murphy, the case did indeed state that abortion was prohibited to protect the health of the mother, but it then immediately stated that it was to protect the life of the fetus as well. It was clearly defending the unborn. The Smith case says that the mother could be punished for trying to harm her unborn child. Quite the contrary to what the court claimed it said. The Vince case said that the woman could not be prosecuted because of specific circumstances pertaining to that case, but it did also say that a woman was “chargeable criminally if the child were quick”. The Texas cases say that the woman could not be prosecuted for an abortion just as the court states. Yet they also do not say that the abortionist could be prosecuted either. This means that the abortionist could not be charged with harming the woman. This information is relevant because court claims the whole point of these cases is that the woman was a victim in abortions. As just shown, the rulings suggest
Jane Roe was a single, unmarried American woman who lived in Dallas County, Texas. She became pregnant and filed a lawsuit in the 1970's against the abortion law of Texas, which prohibited her from having an abortion. She believed that this law was unconstitutional. …show more content…
There were many notable Greek thinkers who opposed abortion. These include: Soranus, Seneca, the poet Ovid, and the Stoic Gaius Musonius Rufus. In Plato’s “Republic”, he talks about the ideal perfect society. For population control, he advises that the excess population be sent out as colonists, not aborted. He only sees abortion as something for when it is demanded of by the state, not individual desire. Aristotle wrote that abortion should only be used for population control as a last resort, and only up to when life was thought to have started. This is far from “commending” it as the court claimed. As for the Oath, the part of it which references abortion states the following: “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” The court assumed that the facts Dr. Edelstein gave concerning the Oath meant that he was questioning the validity of the oath, when in fact he was …show more content…
First in Murphy, the case did indeed state that abortion was prohibited to protect the health of the mother, but it then immediately stated that it was to protect the life of the fetus as well. It was clearly defending the unborn. The Smith case says that the mother could be punished for trying to harm her unborn child. Quite the contrary to what the court claimed it said. The Vince case said that the woman could not be prosecuted because of specific circumstances pertaining to that case, but it did also say that a woman was “chargeable criminally if the child were quick”. The Texas cases say that the woman could not be prosecuted for an abortion just as the court states. Yet they also do not say that the abortionist could be prosecuted either. This means that the abortionist could not be charged with harming the woman. This information is relevant because court claims the whole point of these cases is that the woman was a victim in abortions. As just shown, the rulings suggest