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 .
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.
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
The moral status of her one living child was not taken into much consideration. With physicians and authorities jumping to conclusions, the time taken to respond to this case was perceived as relatively short. When it comes to moral status of a human being, one must consider whether someone qualifies for moral consideration. In this case, twin B’s moral status was not taken into consideration. The rights of pregnant women, is an everlasting controversy, “when physicians’ concerns about fetal well being are allowed to supersede both a woman’s judgment about what is best for her family and her right to safeguard her bodily integrity, then this is no principled limitation on state power to police pregnancy and punish pregnant women” (Minkoff, Paltrow, 2013).
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.
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.
This case brought light to many similar situations. Petitioners supporting Joshua and his mother think that the ruling was unfair and have rallied many times to petition the court. The attempts made to change the Court ruling have
In 1973 Roe v. Wade case decision gave woman the freedom that they deserve, weather to keep their baby or choose abortion. This is a case that is 50% right and 50% wrong. Many people believe it’s killing a person, while other believe its protecting potential life. I favor both arguments depending on the reason. Therefore I think parents shouldn’t be judged on their decisions if we don’t know the behind scenes to the decisions. Abortion is a right to privacy without regard United States Supreme Court made a great decision for all the woman in the United States. This decision should be private for the parents not a decision controlled by constitution.
The issue of whether or not we should allow abortion, or to grant pro-choice has been widely debated in our community lately. This topic is important for the morality of expectant mothers that are dealing with issues of feticide. In recent elections, abortion has become a main point of interest for democrats and republicans. Democrats are mainly pro-choice, while the republicans are preponderantly pro-life affiliates. Different arguments have been discussed as to why abortion should be legal, however, pro-choice is the accurate view point. Abortions should continue to stay legalized, but only for legitimate reasoning’s. But because of the 19th amendment, expectant mothers have the constitutional rights to decide if she wants to terminate the fetus or not. There are a plethora of reasons for the aborting of a child, including the multiple health risks, the incident of rape/incest, and the underdevelopment of the teenage bodies.
Women and Abortion, Prospects of Criminal Charges Monograph, American Center for Bioethics, 422 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Spring 1983
Every day minors, adults, students, and even parents make the wrong decision about using abortion. They don’t see how much it affects not only the fetus, but also the mother. We all make mistakes and because of a choice that was thought logically incorrect, a child could be in danger and have the opportunity to live their life taken away from them. Abortion hurts young fetus, but it also hurts the sentimental feelings of the adult. Every person has feelings, even an adult, when someone has an abortion they feel the pain in their heart along with their body.
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.
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.
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.