It seems lately that the
abortion fight has stopped. It seems that anyone who is pro-life and tries to
voice their oppinion on it is marginalized by the libs and made to look like a
moron. I wrote the following research paper to illustrate how abortion is not
only wrong, but unconstitutional. Yes, by my own admission I am an evangelical
christian by nature. This paper however was written from a strictly political
and scientific standpoint. Just to keep from being marginalized as an evangelical.
I hope you enjoy it.
January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided on the case of Roe V. Wade. The decision stated that Texas state laws for abortion were unconstitutional. The case could be made however, that the decision of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". According to that statement in our Constitution, since abortion was never covered in the Constitution, it must be given to the respective states to decide. In other words, Texas has the right, given to it by the Constitution, to have the people of Texas decide what abortion laws they will have. Just as the people of California have the right to have the people decide what abortion laws the people of that state will have.
Many arguments have been made both for and against the Roe V. Wade decision. The Supreme Court in 1973 cited the Fourteenth Amendment for their argument supporting their decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since the case in question in 1973 the main argument for utilizing this amendment was that a fetus is not a human life and therefore is not guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mother however is a human life and a citizen of the United States and is guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument should have been taken away however in 2004 When President George W. Bush signed into law the Laci and Conner's law. After the killing of Laci Peterson who was pregnant with her first son, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Laci and Conner bill which was signed by the president in 2004. The law states "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." According to the rules of precedent, the 2004 law defines the fetus as a human life and therefore should be guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another argument used in this debate is the question of when does life begin. The scientific answer to this question is at conception. According to the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, "scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced." This whole statement says one thing. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, from the point of conception the Fourteenth Amendment should apply.
Ethically the findings of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee and the precedent set by the 2004 Laci and Connor law should outlaw abortion in all cases. These two facts at the very least should call for a special hearing of the Supreme Court to hear the case again and possibly give the rights back to the States as it states in the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Works Cited
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
This website describes in detail the decision of the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/
This website gives the text and description of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html
This website describes in detail both the text and the layman's terms of the Laci and Conner's law.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
This website is the American Bioethics Advisory Committee article defining the beginning of the human being.
January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided on the case of Roe V. Wade. The decision stated that Texas state laws for abortion were unconstitutional. The case could be made however, that the decision of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". According to that statement in our Constitution, since abortion was never covered in the Constitution, it must be given to the respective states to decide. In other words, Texas has the right, given to it by the Constitution, to have the people of Texas decide what abortion laws they will have. Just as the people of California have the right to have the people decide what abortion laws the people of that state will have.
Many arguments have been made both for and against the Roe V. Wade decision. The Supreme Court in 1973 cited the Fourteenth Amendment for their argument supporting their decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since the case in question in 1973 the main argument for utilizing this amendment was that a fetus is not a human life and therefore is not guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mother however is a human life and a citizen of the United States and is guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument should have been taken away however in 2004 When President George W. Bush signed into law the Laci and Conner's law. After the killing of Laci Peterson who was pregnant with her first son, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Laci and Conner bill which was signed by the president in 2004. The law states "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." According to the rules of precedent, the 2004 law defines the fetus as a human life and therefore should be guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another argument used in this debate is the question of when does life begin. The scientific answer to this question is at conception. According to the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, "scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced." This whole statement says one thing. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, from the point of conception the Fourteenth Amendment should apply.
Ethically the findings of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee and the precedent set by the 2004 Laci and Connor law should outlaw abortion in all cases. These two facts at the very least should call for a special hearing of the Supreme Court to hear the case again and possibly give the rights back to the States as it states in the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Works Cited
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
This website describes in detail the decision of the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/
This website gives the text and description of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html
This website describes in detail both the text and the layman's terms of the Laci and Conner's law.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
This website is the American Bioethics Advisory Committee article defining the beginning of the human being.
No comments:
Post a Comment