Reproductive Rights

I was told recently that I will never be able to fully appreciate the US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade because I am not a woman. I decided to investigate further.

ROE V. WADE.

I asked BING Copilot to help me understand.

The Roe v. Wade case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, is significant for several reasons:

1. Legalization of Abortion: The ruling struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States¹. This decision recognized a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion as part of her right to privacy, which is protected by the 14th Amendment¹.

2. Right to Privacy: The case established that the right to privacy, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy¹.

3. Impact on Women’s Rights: Roe v. Wade became a cornerstone for women’s reproductive rights, influencing subsequent legal and political battles over abortion and women’s health care².

4. Ongoing Debates: The decision has remained a focal point of political and ethical debates in the U.S., reflecting broader societal conflicts over issues of morality, autonomy, and government regulation².

5. Legal Precedent: Although the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the case’s legacy continues to shape discussions and legal interpretations regarding reproductive rights and privacy¹.

PRO arguments.

In the Roe v. Wade case, the arguments in favor of Roe, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion, included several key points:

1. Right to Privacy: The central argument was that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment. This right to privacy was deemed “fundamental” and broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy¹.

2. Health and Well-being: It was argued that denying a woman the right to an abortion could impose significant health risks and economic burdens. The Court recognized the potential physical and psychological harm that could result from being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy².

3. Personal Liberty: The decision to have an abortion was framed as a matter of personal liberty, integral to a woman’s autonomy and ability to make decisions about her own body and life².

4. Balancing Interests: The Court attempted to balance the state’s interests in protecting the health of the mother and the potential life of the fetus with the woman’s right to privacy. This led to the establishment of the trimester framework, which allowed for increasing state regulation as the pregnancy progressed³.

These arguments were pivotal in the Court’s decision to strike down restrictive state laws on abortion and recognize a woman’s right to choose as a constitutional right.

CON arguments.

The arguments against **Roe v. Wade** were multifaceted and included several key points:

1. **Constitutional Interpretation**: Critics argued that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy that would encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion. They contended that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by creating a new constitutional right¹.

2. **State's Rights**: Opponents believed that the decision infringed on states' rights to regulate medical practices and protect prenatal life. They argued that states should have the authority to set their own abortion laws based on the values and beliefs of their residents².

3. **Protection of Fetal Life**: A central argument was that the state has a compelling interest in protecting potential human life from the moment of conception. This view holds that the fetus has a right to life that should be protected by law².

4. **Judicial Activism**: Some critics viewed the decision as an example of judicial activism, where the Court was seen as making law rather than interpreting it. They argued that such significant social and moral issues should be decided by the legislative process, not by judicial decree³.

5. **Moral and Ethical Concerns**: Many opponents raised moral and ethical objections to abortion, believing it to be morally wrong and equating it with taking a human life. These arguments often stemmed from religious and philosophical beliefs about the sanctity of life³.

These arguments were central to the debates that led to the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, shifting the authority to regulate abortion back to individual states.

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 2024-11-11

(1) 5 key arguments from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/key-arguments-supreme-court-decision-overturn-roe-v-wade-rcna35277.

(2) Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html.

(3) Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade.

(4) Key facts about abortion views in the U.S. | Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/07/15/key-facts-about-the-abortion-debate-in-america/.

(5) Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe | USCCB. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/ten-legal-reasons-to-reject-roe.

MY LIFE LENS

I concede the argument that I, as a man, cannot experience life as a woman physically, culturally or emotionally.

I can only attempt to understand Roe v Wade through my own life experience as a father of two grown women and a grandfather. I have never been pregnant and can’t possibly understand that personal experience or all that it entails. In that sense, I sit on the sidelines feeling unqualified to take a stand one way or another.

Another opinion - male

A friend of mine who died last year in his 80s was an ardent advocate of unborn children. He argued that I was “copping out” for not taking a stand and told me so in no uncertain terms.

My friend, a Christian, made his case against abortion on moral terms and did so effectively. It angered him that I would not take a stand ‘for’ or ‘against’ abortion and, I suspect, he attributed my noncommittal position to the fact that I am not a Christian or follower of any Biblical tradition.

Principles

My instinct on this subject has been to take the Libertarian position of Informed Consent (ie. Freedom of Informed Choice).

However, I also consider the two other LTN principles:

• Do No Harm (the Non-Aggression Principle)

• The right to defend and protect his or her individual Person & (legally acquired) Property. This is based on my beliinherent BIRTHRIGHT of every human being to the personal assets required to survive and thrive peacefully. As a principle, this means

These instincts have been shaped and informed by 73 years of life as a man who has always favoured individual autonomy over the collectivism. Religious and secular organizations practice collectivism. They often exert or coerce their authority at the expense of each individual and the circumstances he or she face personally.

My instincts are not the norm.

Most people seek refuge from collectivist institutions. Their leaders seek the power to impose their will on others through their acclaimed “authority of the majority”. As an Advocate for Less Government and a person with no religious affiliation, I generally oppose collectivism in its most oppressive forms.

Mark Shields famously stated:

“There is always strength in numbers.

The more individuals or organizations that you can rally to your cause, the better.”

It’s hard to argue against this advice.

Collectivism appears to be fundamental to the human condition, broadly speaking.

In my view, the Goliath that it represents institutionally is impossible to defeat.

For this reason, I continue to “plead the 5th” and stay out of the Roe v Wade debate altogether.