Editorial

Roe v. Wade

The infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which essentially legalized some forms of abortion, was made by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court 29 years ago. The plaintiff, “Jane Roe,” a pseudonym for a woman later identified as Norma McCorvey, was challenging a Texas law that had illegalized abortion except when the mother’s life was in danger. The Supreme Court decided that an abortion during the first trimester (initial three months) was at the discretion of a woman and her doctor; abortion during the second trimester could be restricted but not prohibited by states. An abortion in the final three months of pregnancy could be regulated—or banned—by states except when the life of the mother is at risk.

The controversy of the decision is that a specific clause in the Constitution was not available to justify the ruling. Instead, the judgment was loosely based upon the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. An intense debate still ensues over the merits of abortion and the judgment that made it legal. Rather than present only one part of the argument, we have decided to present both sides of the issue so that each student can determine his or her own opinion.

Roe, Pro-Choice: Colin Powell, when asked about his views on abortion, responded that it should be between a woman, the father and their God. Though most Republicans, historically, are pro-life, Powell went against the grain by saying that it should not be the business of the government to pass laws that have control over a woman’s body. The primary argument by most pro-choice activists is, “Keep your laws off my body.”

The basis for many arguments is that an embryo or fetus is a human being—albeit a developing one—and needs protection. The Constitution guarantees rights to persons—those who are born, but not those unborn. Thus, the same rights cannot apply to an embryo or a fetus. Human life does not begin at conception. At conception, the sperm is inside the egg as a separate entity. It has not yet begun to develop and form into an embryo. It is not yet a human life. The real basis for most of the arguments against abortion does not fall into the realm of science but one of religion. The soul of an unborn child—a fetus—must be protected. That is exactly why it should be between a woman, the father and their God, and no one else. Their privacy must be respected, as decided in Roe v. Wade.

Wade, Pro-Life: The argument against abortion is not simply for “religious” reasons. It is for a basic, moral right: one that dictates that senseless killing is wrong. We say “senseless” because in many cases, the aborted child would have grown to become a normal, healthy human being. The government should not defend and support murder in any form, and sadly, this is what the government has done in the Roe v. Wade decision.

Abortion is made especially “senseless” when the current alternatives are taken into account. Various means of contraception—-in the form of birth control, condoms, etc.—-are readily available to sexually active women. If, for whatever reason, a woman is negligent in using preventative measures, the option of adoption still exists. Many families who cannot conceive children of their own spend years on adoption waiting lists. This makes the numerous lives that are terminated because of abortion even more tragic.

The government, in effect, does legislate morality. That is what it is there for: to defend innocent people against injustices. Murder is illegal because one person, morally, should not have the right to take the life of another. We should not allow the murder of innocent children to be permitted under law just because the victims are unable to speak for themselves.