The right to die is not embedded in the Constitution. Based on the first and fourteenth amendments euthanasia is not invested in the Constitution. The first amendment expresses freedom of religion. The fourteenth amendment states you can’t deprive anyone from life.
Many states agree with the idea of abortion being fetal homicide, although, according to a scientific study, fetuses are unable to feel pain until at least their 26th week of life (“ 'Fetal Pain ' Anti-Abortion Laws Spur Fierce Debate. ")("Fetal Homicide Laws."). If a fetus is not even able to feel pain, the idea of “murdering” the fetus should not even be considered because it is barely developed. According to the Bible, some pro-life activists say that “Thou shalt not kill” applies to unborn children further implying that abortion is murder (The Holy Bible: King James Version).
• Pro-choice argues: o The fetus is not a human until after the first trimester o Cases like rape or incest should be allowed for abortion o Abortion can take a toll on a person life and should be available because some parents are not financially stable or mentally prepared for a child to come in their life. • Pro-life argues: o The fetus is a human as soon as it’s conceived o Adoption could be an alternate for abortion so no life is taken and the child goes to a family that will love and take care of it. o Tax dollars shouldn’t be used to pay for abortions if all citizens don’t support or have the same views on
Rather, it is merely something which someone else’s religion dislikes. At the end, marriage is not defined by religion; but instead interpreted by the government. Even if the “holy book tells you to wed all the girls in apartment 3G” you are still are not allowed to do so. Regarding the controversial issue of same sex marriage. It seems that Pollit is trying to justify same sex marriage by comparing it to a legal substandard marriage (A man can marry a woman no matter how ill acquainted).
In this NBC News article, “Planned Parenthood Will Pay Its Own Fetal Tissue Costs”, (NBC News). Anti- Abortion groups are furious with Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissue for profit and to maintain programs within this organization. The videos were released in mid-July by anti-abortion activists who called themselves the Center for Medical Progress (top right paragraph). Planned Parenthood will no longer receive any kind of payment to help with the cost of the programs. Some of their clinics; fetal tissues will only be used for scientific research.
The author explains how a marital contract should not be given to those who cannot fulfill it, such as children and family (30). He then claims that homosexuals can fulfill said license, but unwittingly contradicts himself by saying, “But it isn’t necessary to prove that homosexuals or lesbians are less--or more--able to form long-term relationships than straights for it to be clear that at least some are.” (30). This clearly shows how disconnected the author is from his audience. This is a persuasive article, attempting to sway people into believing that homosexual marriage should be legal, yet he assumes his audience feels it apparent that some homosexuals are capable of the commitment of marriage.
With almost half the nation divided among their views, abortion remains one of the most controversial topics in our society. Since Roe v. Wade, our views in society as well as following court cases have been progressing toward the woman’s right to choose. The precedent set by Roe v. Wade made the Supreme Court acknowledge that it cannot rule specifically when life begins and it also affirms that it is the woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th Amendment. In the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause forbids the government from passing laws “which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another”. Many Christian pro-lifers use their religious beliefs to dispute when life begins.
For example, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a law suit against North Carolina for discrimination against Transgenders (and North Carolina countersuing for over-reach) for standing to protect women and children by denying transgenders the right to enter girl’s restrooms (DOJ, 2016). Apparently, North Carolina is intolerant for denying transgenders rights that are privy to biological women and children; however, the DOJ believes they are tolerant for forcing this over-reach of the law on others. Religious Liberty is under attack by the present administration who is demonstrating zero tolerance for the rights of Christians and Jews. The question is, “Are we going to use our freedoms while we still have them constructively, or are we going to stand up and defend them to keep America, One Nation under
Justice White strongly disagreed with what Justice Blackmun said. He said that nothing in the Constitution had to do anything with abortion and he thought that making abortion legal was allowing women to decided wether or not it was convenient for them to take on a child. In response, Justice Blackmun argued back stating his opinion and diving in straight to the matter of a person 's privacy. " The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or sones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."
This was said becuase the 1st amendment keeps the government from determining when and how people should worship. The authorization of the law introducing a prayer was opposing what the amendment stands for therefore it was unconstitutional. Many early americans have been troubled in the past by religious enforcements and persecution. The Court declared that the Establishment Clause denies the government in having a say in religious exercises. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinnion stating that the freedom of religion means that is not the government 's buisness tocompose official prayers for any group of American citizens.
Women decisions should be theirs, with support of the father. This is just one example where I believe the government takes things too far. They become too involved from my perspective. I believe another great example of this is any special interest group. While also seeing the need for them and their policy creation abilities, there comes a point where a group can gain too much power.
David Von Drehle’s article about the recent controversy in an elected Kentucky Clerk 's office describes Kim Davis ' refusal to issue same sex marriage licenses and stresses that it is not her place to do so. In this article, David Von Drehle uses strong rhetoric to convince the reader that it is not Kim Davis’ place to refuse to issue marriage licenses. He starts out with the phrase “The heat around gay marriage is obscuring what a simple distinction this actually is. But suppose the Rowan County Clerk was a devout Hindu” (Von Drehle Time)
The backlash on the ruling is much warranted. I say this because if we took a national poll, the ruling would be that gay marriage would not be allowed. We live in a democratic society where the people "should" rule but as always, the government has the final say. Although I do agree with the backlash and understand why it is happening I still hold firm to my belief that they should still be allowed to marry. I believe this because if my neighbors who are both males were to marry each other, why or how does that influence or affect my life.