Row Vs Wade case

Wade declared abortion a fundamental right. The decision was arrived at as some proponents argued that pregnant women could resort illegal abortions which are unsafe due o lack of a legal option (Tatalovich, 2015). Abortion is a right is neither limited by the government nor the religion and thus outweighs all the rights claimed for the unborn child. However, the opponents, pro-life opposed abortion with the claim that life begins at fertilization, and abortion are therefore killing of an innocent creature and it is immoral. Further, the pro-life individuals argued that the embryo or fetus is subjected to pain during the termination of life. During the first trimester, government interference was banned and the state was allowed to govern abortion during the second trimester on the basis of maternal health care.

During the third trimester, the state was allowed to prescribe and regulate abortion on the basis of the human life potential if the abortion is intended to preserve the life and health of the expectant mother. The law prohibited physicians not state-licensed to perform an abortion (Pozgar, 2016). From the arguments, abortion is perceived ethical and the circumstance under which abortion is legalized justifies the means. In relation to the Roe v. The life of the mother is valued and thus, abortion is interpreted to be legal. When the pregnancy is below twenty-four weeks, and it is detected that continuance of the pregnancy will adversely affect the mother or any other member of her family including the children, termination of the pregnancy is justified.

Termination is ethical if it will cause lesser effects unlike if the pregnancy progresses. Abortion is justified when it is predicted that the birth of the unborn child could cause suffering such as mental and physical abnormalities or serious handicapped. The need to prevent suffering in the future if the pregnancy progresses till birth credits termination and also puts emphasis on the value of quality life without suffering. However, the pro-choice individuals argue that there is no clear definition of the term human being in the womb of a mother (Rohlinger, 2014). In addition, they argue that it is wrong to call a group of cells existing in the womb a human being. Moreover, to justify abortion, the pro-choice group adds that if the killing of the fetus is unethical, it is equally wrong to amputate any part of the body after an accident which should also be classified as murder.

Further, the proponents of termination only believe an embryo in the womb can only be considered to be human after twenty-one weeks where it develops heartbeats and other body parts. Hence, the killing of a fetus before the twenty-one weeks should not amount to killing a life (Imber, 2017). However, to justify abortion, some philosophers argue that women have a right over their body and the state cannot subject them to carrying the pregnancy to full term. However, women have ethical obligations to the fetus since pregnancies are a result of her actions not using protection during sexual intercourse (Imber, 2017). Thus, the expectant mother should take full responsibility for the unborn since it is the consequences of her actions. In a democratic and free state, it is not right to false women to use their body to carry the pregnancy.