Student Jane Doe had an abortion after signing consent forms herself on April 10,1986. The father of the aborted fetus was a fellow student John Doe. Jane father and Johns mother brought, on the behalf of both students, a civil right suit against the Escambia County (Alabama) Board of Education and against guidance counselor Kay Rose and Vice Principal Melvin Powell. The heart of the suit was that “Rose and Powell forced or compelled Jane to have an abortion and compelled Jane and John to refrain from telling their parents of the pregnancy.” The court found in favor of Board of Education of Escambia County, ALA. The case concluded that the students freely made the decision to have the abortion. Noddings and the Law can be read as being similar …show more content…
Board of Education and Noddings agreed that those who are directly involved should have the say in whether to abort the fetus or not. They both agreed that the decision shouldn’t be made alone. Noddings writes “The decision for or against abortion must be made by those directly involved in the concrete situation, but it need not be made alone” (Noddings, 2005). Similarly, the Court noted “Jane sought additional advice from others, including the counselor Rose, the vice principle and the father of the fetus John Doe” 1989. The Jury agreed that Jane didn’t make the decision alone. Despite both having parents, Jane and John felt safe sharing the information with Rose the counselor instead of their parents,“... suggest a brief and direct form of counseling in which a young expectant mother could come to grips with her feelings ”( Noddings, 2005). Plainly, Noddings would concur with the Court’s decision that Jane and John didn’t make the decision alone and asked for help in advice before acting upon the …show more content…
As such, I find Noddings and the Court’s decision to be more different than the same. In this case the one-caring held the fetus and one-self best interest rather than the one cared for. Not all parents are ideal parents. Some parents bring more harm to their children than good. This case showed me that even though some parents fail to provide their children the help and support they need, there are adults out there who devote their time and life providing help and support to those neglected children. For example, one of my closest friend had parents that were very old school and strict. In our language, we have a word for that people because there are a lot of them. They’re called Jahil. Protectiveness, a restrictive lifestyle and a certain level of Jahil thinking in elders leads to them emotionally damaging their children. Most Jahil parents don’t realize it due to the time and environment differences. My friend self-esteem suffered because her parents constantly called her dark and weak and had restrictions on things that were accessible to other teenagers her age. She knew this was no reason to act aggressive towards them or disrespects them. They didn’t think their Somali sayings about
...s driven by non-maleficence, or the intent to “do no harm”. They know that withholding treatment for religious beliefs will potentially be fatal to both. While Maria is acting out of loyalty to her religious beliefs, the medical staff is acting out of loyalty to the patient’s well being and that of her unborn child. It would be unfair if no party were acting on behalf of that child. In conclusion, providers in this case must pursue every option in delivering life saving treatment for this child. This may involve legal action. If it were just Maria providers may attempt to influence her decision, but ultimately it would be up to her to refuse suggested treatment. Since her decision affects the life of the baby providers are called upon to save that child .
Imagine…the birth of a human being into the world. 9 months of endless anticipation leading to someone’s first chance at seeing the world for the first time. While some enjoy the result of a pregnancy, leading to a new human being entering life, some are not so fond, or just can’t be in such a situation. Abortion is the supposed “cure” to this problem and is, for the most part, done safely. However, one of the factors stopping someone from committing an abortion is the consideration of moral status on the child.
The birth of a child is usually a wonderful and priceless occasion. However, on June 5, 2015, an eleven-year-old girl gave birth to a newborn girl. Approximately a year before she gave birth, her 40-year-old father repeatedly sexually assaulted her. In this case, the unprepared eleven-year-old child decided to have the baby. This is a prime example that illustrates that the right to abortion should always be vested in the woman.
I once did not realize the ethics of medical care of an infant, let alone one that is ill in the NICU. Baby Dylan was at 23 weeks gestation when mother Jennifer and father Kevin gave birth to him. He seemed like a little human eager to live but even the latest advances in medicine were unable to keep him alive. I believe that the parents ended up making the correct decision for baby Dylan. If he ended up being a “keeper” he still could have had severe neurological and respiratory problems for the rest of his life.
a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105,
On January 22, 1973, a monumental ordeal for all of the United States had come about, which was that abortion was legalized. It was the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade that made us take a turn on this political issue. In this case, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) was an unmarried woman who wasn’t permitted to terminate her unborn child, because the Texas criminal abortion law made it impossible to perform an abortion unless it was putting the mother’s health in danger. Jane Roe was against doing it illegally, so she fought to do it legally. In the court ruling, they acknowledged that the lawful right to have privacy is extensive enough to cover a woman’s decision on whether or not she should be able to terminate her pregnancy.
The woman at the center of the case named in court documents as Jane Roe grew up as Norma McCorvey. Norma had been a victim of childhood abuse and in order to escape the abuse at home she dropped out of school in ninth grade to marry a man who would turn out to physically and emotionally abuse her as well. After having left her husband and struggling to make ends meet Norma found herself pregnant. At the time Texas state law prohibited the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means, except when the life of the mother was put in danger, rape, or incest has occurred. Roe claimed that she had been raped and wanted an abortion but since there was never any evidence that a rape had ever happened Roe could not procure an abortion. Roe consulted with an attorney named Sarah Weddington and found the statues were unconstitutional because they infringed on her right to personal privacy, protected by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. At this time Roe decided to take federal action against the District Attorney Henry Wade of Dallas County, Texas on her behalf and all other women in similar situations. Roe decided to go ahead with the case even though it would not help her pregnancy situation. Roe would later on give birth to the baby and put it up for
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Throughout the years, modern medical technology has resulted in the recent legalization of abortions throughout many countries in the world. However, the process of terminating a pregnancy has been around since the time women were able to have babies. Though the court has permitted selective abortion, many believe that it is murder and disagree with anyone with a “pro-choice” view. Sidney Callahan, the author of the article “Abortion and the Sexual Agenda” fights all points made by Harrison and Petchesky and believes pregnant women do not have the right to control another body. In a case study about a family who finds themselves unexpectedly pregnant with their third child, Callahan would support the pregnancy and agree with Bob Thompson in
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
With so many women choosing to have abortions, it would be expected that it would not be so greatly frowned up, yet society is still having problems with its acceptance. Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself, free from government interference, whether or not to have an abortion. Today, more than ever, American families do not want the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters. That is why, even though Americans may differ on what circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question of who should make this personal decision, the majority of Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this private choice for herself. Anti-choice proposals to ban abortions for “sex-selection” or “birth-control” are smokescreens designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this issue and trivialize the seriousness with which millions of women make this highly personal decision. Any government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force all women to publicly justify their reasons for seeking abortion.
Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset. Works Cited Warren, Mary Anne, and Mappes, D. DeGrazia. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion. Biomedical Ethics 4th (1996): 434-440. Print.
In the year March 1970, a woman dubbed Jane Roe took federal action against Texas abortion laws. These laws prevented Roe from terminating her pregnancy because abortions were only allowed in the scenario that the fetus was harming the life of the mother (Rosenbaum 63). Because Roe wasn’t in any way harmed by her pregnancy, she could not get an abortion. “Roe believed that TX statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments” (Rosenbaum 64). She wanted an abortion done professionally in a clean and safe environment (Rosenbaum 63). Women before the legalization of abortion would resort to unsafe methods to terminate their baby (Tribe 113).
Based on the pre-sentencing report about the offender Jane Doe, not only is she a risk to herself but to other who associated with her from family to friends. Jane Doe has a nasty drug substance abuse that doesn’t get the necessary treatment she would most like overdose herself. Jane Doe believe that she doesn’t have a problem with drug substance therefore she constantly ignored the consequences of her action. She failed to realize that her 5 and 3years old daughters are suffer the most from her drug addiction because they don’t have a mother who supposed to nurture and take care of them. Jane has 3 major problems that she is facing such as substance abuse, behavior /mental issues and financial/parent skill problem. My job as her probation
It is saddening to see humans of the female gender, who find themselves in a situation that requires introducing a new life into the world; to abort such a precious gift. Many may wonder how these poor, innocent, unborn children are then discarded after the abortion procedure. One cannot fathom the reason of these gruesome murders that happens within these medical facilities. Babies are disposed in the red waste bins of these facilities, and later incinerated. Some may either be flushed down garbage disposals or even be sold off for research purposes. The issue of abortion is not just a social one, but also a human rights issue among the unborn children. I believe if the human rights of these children has been violated, then all other rights of humans are certainly meaningless.