Roe Vs. Wade

1089 Words 5 Pages
Flordeliz Pepper
Dr. Thomas Cross
Philosophy 2306-21003: Ethics

Roe vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade is a famous case that gave every woman a federal constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. The case was brought by a 21 years old Texan female name Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) and her two female attorneys who argued, “The Constitutional Right of a Woman’s to Privacy”, which includes the liberty of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. Pregnant for the third time, knowing that she is incapable of raising another child, the poor and young mother of two wishes to get a legal abortion in the state of Texas. Roe was denied to have an abortion due to lack of evidence supporting that her unwanted pregnancy was due to rape or her life and the life of her unborn
…show more content…
Abortion for another reason is completely immoral to me. I substantiate that life began in conception, without conception no person in the world would be born. The fetus stage is scientifically and natural part of an evolution of the human life cycle. Abortion is to terminate a human being in any stage of life, then abortion, ending a life of the fetus, is absolutely wrong. Killing is murder and murder are ethical absolutes. Taking a life of a fetus is also taking away a person 's right to live. No one has the right to take away a life of a person, especially the innocent unborn child who cannot defend its authority, the right to life. Adding to this exception, the woman has the right to abortion. IF, a woman got pregnant without her consent, like in the case of rape or incest then she has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Any woman who has gone through this kind of traumatic sexual act should have a right to choose whether she want to obtain an abortion or not. I assumed that sex act, in which was not consented by her, was done by force and was against her free will should have a liberty to choose. Therefore, it is not her responsibility to take the consequences of the action that was not to her choosing. With all due respect, she and only she alone can define if her judgment if it is right or wrong. I gave to understand that just …show more content…
In the statement of John Mill Stuart in liberty, the individual is not accountable to society for his action, in so far in these concern the interest of no person but himself. Secondly, that for such actions are prejudicial to the interest of others, the individual is accountable, and may subject either to social or to legal punishment. This means that there is no one in the society cannot tell a woman whether she can or cannot get an abortion, as long this concern just herself. She has a liberty to do what she want as long as she is not hurting anyone else. The society has to take in a consideration the reason behind one 's action. In the case of abortion, I understand that her right is not overruled with exceptions of a legitimate reason. Abortion is, she is not only harming herself, but she is harming a life of her unborn child. Since she is cognitively hurting a life of another human being, the society can step in and say that her action is wrong. But if she is terminating her pregnancy to save at least her life, then she have an appropriate reason and the society should take that in

Related Documents