Comment on the Articles of Thomas Mappes and Monica Davey

Abortion refers to the ending of a lifespan of a fetus before its full term. It is the termination of pregnancy whether intended or not in any stage of the non-viability of the fetus. In which case, the fetus is separated from the uterus (Mappes, 2006).

Abortion issues could be traced back as early as the time of the first century i.e. Persian Empire, Roman Empire, and the Greeks (Roe vs. Wade, 1973). Due to the sensitivity and emotional nature of abortion, it is most likely that a persons judgment will be overshadowed by his family values, religious training, attitudes, and moral standard (Roe vs Wade, 1973). These are the same reasons why I also believe that the Supreme Court and legislators have difficulties in creating unanimous decisions and integrated criminal abortion laws for the State. The differences in ones opinions, beliefs, choices, and values sacrifice uniformity among States.

The recent breakthrough in the Nebraska criminal abortion law, which notably mentioned the possibility of fetal pain (Davey, 2010) might be able to solve the issue on the rights of a person which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Mappes, 2006). But, this puts us in another major dilemma maternal danger vs. fetal pain. Although the viability of the fetus, the possibility of life after birth, was already considered by the Supreme Court (Roe vs. Wade, 1973), this new advancement will give a new basis for the prohibition of abortion. In light of this, I strongly believe that criminal abortion law must be unified all throughout the State. This will avoid vagueness in all the aspects, including enforcement and penalties. Moreover, effectively protect the human rights and potentiality of life.


Post a Comment