An Argument Against Abortion Rights
The United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 133 [1973]) that women seeking an abortion had the right to do so legally under a "penumbra" of privacy rights implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Hall, 740). Today, American women are legally entitled to obtain an abortion during the first trimester of a pregnancy without restrictions. In the second trimester, states can regulate access to abortion and in the third trimester states can prevent abortion because of their "vested interest" in protecting the potential life of the fetus (Hall, 740). In this essay, it will be argued that the "right" to an abortion, regardless of its timing, should be re-examined by the courts and statute protecting this right over the rights of the unborn should be overturned.
From a social perspective, Ponnuru (1) believes that the most profound change in the effects of Court decisions on abortion rights since 1973 revolve around a new emphasis on the protection of the rights of the unborn rather than the privacy rights of the pregnant woman. These decisions may reflect in part, the complex positions held by Americans (including politicians and judges) on abortion (Ponnuru, 1). The debate over "choice" and, perhaps more significantly, relative "rights," remains controversial and emotionally charged.
The National Right to Life Committee (1) is an anti-abortion organization that takes a position on abortion rights that is diametrically opposed to that taken by both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. The National Right to life Committee, along with other groups opposed to abortion, holds that abortion, under virtually any and all circumstance, is little more than legalized murder of the unborn. Further, the Pro-Life groups argue that abortion rights are discriminatory in that...