Last Wednesday marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe v. Wade; hence, the subject of legalized abortion in America has returned to the front burner of the political arena.
Laws that govern a society provide a glimpse into what that society deems important. This is why abortion continues to be a hotly debated topic. Americans do not agree on what is most important, and yet, the Burger court's decision in 1973 spoke volumes about what the majority of that court determined to be more valuable - a woman's right to end her pregnancy.
Less valuable - the unborn's right to life. Let's not fool ourselves into debating when life begins. Furthermore, let's not fool ourselves into accepting the Burger court's claim that the lack of consensus as to when life begins was the fundamental reasoning behind Roe v. Wade. What the Burger court was really saying was that a woman's right to terminate her unwanted pregnancy outweighed an unborn baby's right to due process before the law.
But for the sake of argument, let's put aside the Fifth Amendment, or the entire U.S. Constitution for that matter (as the Burger court did back in 1973). Let us even temporarily disregard the fact that Roe v. Wade is not the "law of the land," as is widely claimed, but rather a court verdict binding to the parties in the case itself.
Article I Section I of the Constitution grants lawmaking powers to the legislative branch only, not the judicial branch of government. But let's forget all that for a moment.
Instead, let's address those the Burger court deemed less valuable. Let's talk about those little "undesirables." The fundamental question as to when life begins is really not the issue here; it is merely a smokescreen for a situation that is completely inequitable. Apparently, the question of when life begins applies only to those pregnancies that are unwanted. And this is precisely what makes Roe v. Wade unjust.
Let's take a closer look at this double standard:
When an unborn baby is wanted, she is called a "baby." Nobody asks a pregnant woman, "Do you know if your unborn fetus is a boy or a girl?" Or "Do you have a name picked out for your potential life/fetal tissue?"
When an unborn baby is wanted, parties are thrown in her honor and gifts are given. Ever receive an invitation for a "Fetal Shower"? I haven't either.
When an unborn baby is wanted, doctors do everything in their power to keep that baby alive. If a baby is born prematurely at 24 weeks, doctors will go to extremes and hook that child up to a machine that will keep her little heart pumping and keep those lungs going. An unborn baby who is unwanted is granted none of these subtleties.
Even more severely, when an unborn baby is wanted, and she exits the comfort of her mother's womb, she is placed at the breast, swaddled in a blanket, or placed in a bassinet.
The unborn baby who is not wanted exits the comfort of her mother's womb and is placed in a garbage can. Sometimes her organs are stripped from her body and sold for profit.
So I ask: How is it that the exact same unborn baby can be treated so very differently, based on her "desirability"? How ethical is that? How just is that? What does it say about a society when it treats its "undesirables" in this manner?
One other important factor to consider is this: To whom is this unborn baby deemed "undesirable"? To her biological mother alone, according to the law. But who do we think we are as individuals to place value on another's life?
Furthermore, if the unborn baby is indeed unwanted by her biological mother, is it possible to consider that she might be wanted by someone else? Have we become so selfish as a society that we refuse to cope with nine months of inconvenience, not even for the sake of allowing one person's "mistake" to become another person's blessing?
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
