Before one can answer the question of “Who Owns the Body?” it must be defined what the body is. The spiritual route of defining the body is to encompass the “soul” or “spirit” inside of the body. This is a deeper form of ownership in that an individual’s integral being is controlled as opposed to simply their physical form. Merriam-Webster defines the body as “a person's or animal's whole physical self” (Merriam-Webster). The physical form of the body is a factual, concrete definition of the body, giving it more merit in society, and in law institutions.
There have been several court cases that have dealt with the issue of body ownership. Court cases are the main component to the history of this topic. Some cases pertaining to this question include Roe v. Wade, Mohr v. Williams, and Moore v. Regents of the University of California. These cases debate an individual’s right to his physical body from a medical standpoint.
1937’s Roe v. Wade is a landmark case centered around Norma L. McCorvey (Roe). According to Lawnix Criminal Case index Roe “brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws” (Roe). The issue was whether abortion laws were constitutional if they only outlawed all abortions except those that endangered the life of the mother, out-casting Roe who wanted an abortion without cause. This case pertains to the question of ownership of the body because it asks if the individual, Roe, has the right to do what she wishes with her body and abort her pregnancy, or if the government has ownership in saying that she cannot. The conclusion of this case was that Roe in fact constitutionally had rights to her own body. “The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, t...
... middle of paper ...
...2. 24 Jan 2014.
Rapp, Rayna, and Ginsburg, Faye. “Standing at the Crossroads of Genetic Testing: New Eugenics, Disability Consciousness, and New Eugenics, Disability Consciousness, and Women’s Work”. The Informed Argument. Eds. Robert P. Yagelski and Robert K. Miller. Boston, Massachusetts: Thomson Wadsworth P, 2004. 234-239
“Roe v. Wade – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix. 24 Jan 2014.
Than, Ker. “Extending Human Life: Progress and Promises.” Live Science. 24 May 2006. 24 Jan 2014.
Todd, E. Mable. The Thinking Body. New York, 1937.
“Who Owns Your Body”? American Civil Liberties Union. June 13, 2013. 16 Jan 2013.
< https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/who-owns-your-body>
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
"A Cell 's Life: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks." Issues in Science and Technology 26.4 (2010): 87. Academic OneFile. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
Should people have legal ownership of their own bodily tissues? Or should the information from a person’s bodily tissues be able to be used by all scientists in the name of scientific research? When considering these fundamental questions, I reached a clear answer: tissues should be considered rese once removed from the body or the person has deceased and all research done on the publicly owned tissues should also be public domain. Furthermore, the research done on the matter must be traceable and results be publicized, meaning that no scientist may use the public information for their personal profit. Increasing the bounty of tissue available to scientists will only heighten the amount of research globally.
The way Jennifer Church approaches the issue of body ownership in “Ownership and the Body”, it sounds as though that we own our bodies is a given fact, and the controversy is over what follows from this and why it is important to have a discussion of this fact. I, however, intend to argue that it is a bad move to allow for the idea of self-ownership (or any sort of ownership of subjects), that it is more likely to perpetuate problems than to solve them to think in this way, and that the belief in the possibility of body/self-ownership is rooted primarily in linguistic ambiguities (“property” vs. “properties”, different senses of “mine”, etc.).
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.
do our mortal lives belong to us alone, are we sovereign over our bodies, or do
Controversy and arguments that were setbacks in the ongoing battle for women’s rights, specifically the right to an abortion, were put to slight a rest with the landmark verdict of Roe v. Wade. The revolution in reproductive rights caused by Roe v. Wade evolved from a spark in the hearts of women everywhere. When women claimed their rights as humans, that was when the face of women’s equality in all aspects started to change. The case of Roe v. Wade was the official legalization of a woman’s constitutional right to get an abortion in the United States, but the aftermath of any case is what makes or breaks the future laws and regulations. Through all of the restrictions, regulations, and loopholes, Roe v. Wade’s verdict stuck and continued to
The facts of this case show that Roe, who at the time was a single woman, decided to challenge the State of Texas’s abortions laws. The law in that state stated that it was a felony to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 1973). At the time many illegal abortions were being performed in back alleys and in very unsanitary conditions. Therefore, some states began to loosen up on abortion restrictions, in which some women found it easy to travel to another state where the abortion laws were less restrictive and they could find a doctor was willing to endorse the medical requirement for an abortion. Unfortunately, less fortunate or poor women could seldom travel outside their own state to get the treatment, which started to raise questions of fairness. Also, many of the laws were vague; therefore many doctors really didn’t know whether they were committing ...
" Abortion and the Constitution: Reversing Roe v. Wade Through the Courts. Horan, Grant, Cunningham, eds., pp. 113-117. Washington, D.C. - The. : Georgetown University Press, 1987.
It is one sad existence, to live and die, without discovering, what could have been. The question is often asked, what is the meaning of life? Or even, what is the purpose? There is no clear answer, and yet there is a search in every moment, every breath, and every corner, for a minute hint. In a societal setting, identity is merely determined by the amount of tangible things owned. Society places the ideology on individuals that those who own the most tangible things are above others. An individual can trump all those societal values by owning the self. This brings equality to all, and levels the playing field. This has been true throughout history, however behind all of this, there are individuals learning to conquer themselves. It begs the question, what defines a person, the physical or the metaphysical? There is obviously a compelling relationship between ownership and the sense of self or identity. But, is it ownership that determines the sense of self or is it perhaps, that the sense of self determines ownership. The
Every woman has the right to make any decision that involves her body. Our government has always respected the individual’s right to privacy. A woman’s reproductive system should not be regulated by the government. In the Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade in 1973, the decision to make abortion legal came in effect (Frohock 1983). Before Roe, many women were pregnant were forced to weigh their respect for the law against their positivism that they were not ready to be mothers. Many women chose to break the law, putting their lives and futures at risk, and decided to get unsafe and expensive procedures.
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
In 1970, Norma McCorvey, a single and pregnant woman in Texas wanted to get an abortion. The state laws of Texas at that time stated that it was illegal to have an abortion in Texas. Even though the state told her that she could go to one of the four states in which abortion was legal to have the procedure done, she decided that she could not afford to travel to another state to receive the procedure. Norma McCorvey decided that she would sue the state of Texas, claiming that her constitutional rights were being taken from her. She then changed her name to the pseudonym “Jane Roe” to protect her right of privacy. The district court found that Roe did have grounds to file the suit against the state of Texas. They ruled on the grounds that the abortion laws in Texas infringed on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments of the constitution. The first amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html). The fourth amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
In the second part of the twentieth century, women’s rights once again gained a lot of momentum. The women’s liberation movement was born out of women civil right activists who were tired of waiting for legislative change for women’s rights. Even though women are being recognized more in society, they still face difficult issues. Sexism –especially in the workforce –is becoming a major issue, birth control pills are still not popular, and abortions are frowned upon in society. The case Roe v. Wade is about a woman with the fake name of Jane Roe who wanted an abortion but the state of Texas would not let her unless her life was in danger. She sued the district attorney of Dallas County saying that it violated the right to privacy under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Usually, some arguments for being against abortions are because it is like killing a life, religious reasons, and less chance of future pregnancies. Some arguments that approve abortion are the rights of privacy and the mother to make her own decision. I decided to pick the landmark case Roe v. Wade because there are many ways to argue for and against abortions, so I wanted to give it an overarching view before I personally pick a side. Roe v. Wade is a significant case because it shows how rights in the Constitution do not have to be explicitly mentioned for it to implement and the change in abortion laws that affect women.
In 1973, in what has become a landmark ruling for women’s rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion. Ever since, individual states have adopted, altered, and/or mutilated the edict to fit their agendas – Texas included. However, the decision made by the justices in Roe v. Wade didn’t set clear cut, inarguable demarcation lines, which has allowed the fiery debate to consume the nation. Rather than establishing a legal ruling of what life is, or is not, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue.