Having reviewed the case and found that under the right of privacy(Ability to do with your body as you so choose.) and the constitutional evidence, past cases judged by the court, and Justice Blackmun’s opinion of the court writing, I cannot fault the decision of the court. Below are some excerpts from the case, which can be found here, should anyone wish to review.
I cannot refute this.
I cannot see on the basis of Texas’ claim that the State would have an interest in the life of the fetus, which outweighed the interest in the life of the mother.
I understand the complication of the court’s ruling, and the nature of the constitution’s protection of ‘born’ citizens, and according to the court, those which are viable for birth and can reasonably subsist outside of the mother’s womb. I certainly understand the havok that extending the protection of the constitution to ‘embryos concieved within the United States’ or some such, which is what they would have to do would reak upon our immigration and legal system. By even extending partial constitutional protection to an unborn fetus, the lawsuit market will no doubt feel pangs(Of joy?).
However, given the facts as presented by Blackmun of the history of abortion, I find the knowledge of pre-natal care in the founding father’s time somewhat lacking, and their knowledge of life before birth to be fairly dismal. Given a knowledge of the rates of stillbirth and miscarriage in the late 1700’s, and the fact that a midwife or physician of the time had no reasable way of determining the fetus’ viability short of it’s “quickening”(The evidence of fetal movement in utero.), I find that this may have dictated the constitutional terms of birth as protection. I find it interesting that as medical tests have improved and our ability to determine viability for birth have increased, this understanding has not been expanded by the courts.
I still maintain a chilly attitude towards this disussion, as I find the evidence of life’s beginnings at conception to be hardly lacking, being that once an ovum is fertilized and begins to develop, it begins to grow and maintain it’s life, which can be held genetically to be seperate and distinct from the mother or father. It is then, to my logic at least, a human life, unlike the mother and father which have produced it, that has begun. The distinction of human also being genetic, and is used as a differentiation between an embryo, and non-human developments of cellular growth such as tumors.
So, I find that both the judgement of who is to be considered a person, and when, to be dangerous, mainly because it strikes an image in my mind of the holocaust, but this is only an emotional reaction. Scientifically and logically, I cannot see this issue as anything but state endorsed termination of life. This decision, as I see it, is undermined by economic, social, and and legal baggage, which might have accompanied an opposing decision, placing the court in a position of poor standing, and unlikely to produce the unbiased legal result which Justice Blackmun states as the task of the court.