Sacrificing a little for the good of all, Social


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Social Issues

Sacrificing a little for the good of all

Sacrificing a little for the good of all Sacrificing a little for the good of all infringe upon individual liberties. Throughout the history of our country, the State has been called on to place certain restraints on freedoms. These restraints have been instituted by all levels of government during times when action was warranted to provide for the protection of individual or group rights and public safety. These restraints, typically laws, have affected to varying degrees the absolute freedoms of people. Freedom, in this case, means the absence of external legal restraint to carry out actions of free will. Initially this seems to be undesirable, but when that act of free will is to violate the legal freedoms of one or more people then restraining the act is justified. The state must ensure that the rights, freedoms and liberties of individuals and groups are not impeded by the acts of others. The views or beliefs of one group of people, no matter how large or powerful, cannot be permitted to infringe on the rights of even one individual. This concept is the very base of our society. There is an issue today that is testing this concept, and that issue is abortion, The volatility of the topic and the perplexity of the laws and rulings associated with abortion leads to the question: How much should our government be involved in the abortion issue? The diverse, and often volatile, points of view associated with the abortion issue often incorporate raw emotion powerful enough to lead to violent behavior. The difficulty in defining the morality of the issue perhaps provides a breeding ground for immoderate thinking brought on by the all or nothing stands of the supporters and opponents of the issue. This intolerance of the "other side" has led to many instances of intimidation and outright violence. When these acts of intimidation and violence occur the rights of the victim, guaranteed by our Constitution, are violated. Few topics summon as extreme a divergence between the sides as does abortion. One side believes in the right of the woman to choose if she wants to carry a fetus to term. This "Pro Choice" view has varying opinions on when the fetus is a human life and is thus protected by the Constitution. The other side of the slate believes that the fetus is a human life from conception, and the mother has no right to terminate the life of the child. This "Pro Life" viewpoint points out that abortion is essentially murder as the fetus is protected by the Constitution from the time of conception. The difference in viewpoints of the two sides is a classic example of an ethical and moral dispute. Historically issues of moral difference place the opposing parties in a confrontational situation with little or no common ground between the two sides. Subsequently, it is not unheard of for one side or the other to resort to intimidation and or violence to attempt settlement of the disagreement, or simply to "strike a blow" at the opposition. "Operation Rescue is an anti-abortion organization over a hundred thousand strong, which routinely sends thousands of it's "Shock Troops of the Lord" to block entrances of abortion clinic or to offer "sidewalk counseling" to women as they arrive for abortions. This counseling often involves waiving photographs of aborted fetuses in the women's faces and shouting scripture at them." This anti-abortion faction is bound by a belief to the very depths of its soul that abortion is nothing short of murder. Operation Rescue aspires to make illegal any and all abortions. Typically, but not entirely they are conservative Christians who uniformly believe that life begins at conception. Some members of this organization have been involved in exceedingly violent acts against clinics, Doctors and even staff members of the clinics. Operation Rescue, while large in number and very vocal in their views, is not entirely representative of the anti-abortion movement. The Right to Life movement has become over the past twenty-three years an increasingly powerful force both socially and politically. Since the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, they have spent enormous amounts of time and money in attempts to reverse that decision. "In 1973 the Supreme Court's decision on Roe vs. Wade snatched the legal status of abortion onto the political dueling ground" After the court's decision the Pro Life forces were left with one option. They had to enter the political arena to stop abortion. To accomplish this they had to transform the present pro-choice system into a pro-life system through the electoral process. "The Pro Life advocates feel that since Judges read abortion right into the Constitution then they would use political means to seek judges who would read abortion back out of the Constitution. The 1976 Presidential election saw the pro-life agenda actively involved in the political system for the first time. Since then supporters have aligned themselves with the religious right and have spent millions of dollars and countless man hours endorsing candidates in attempts to change the legal status of abortion. By far the largest success was the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980. Reagan, a strong anti-abortion activist, appointed three conservative Supreme Court Justices and more than half of the Federal Branch during his eight year term. President Reagan also appointed a strong anti-abortionist, C. Everett Koop, as Surgeon General. Koop minces little with regards to words on his opinion of abortion. "In a paper titled "The slide to Auschwitz" Koop compared the right of woman to choose which babies would be born with the decisions made in Nazi Germany about which humans were worthy of life and which were not" With strong support behind them the Pro Life side compared the Roe vs. Wade decision with the 1857 Dred Scott decision. The Scott decision stated that Blacks were not humans but were the sole property of their owners. The owners could buy, sell, trade, or even kill their slaves if they so desired. The Pro Life forces exclaimed that the Roe vs. Wade decision placed the fetus in the same situation as the slaves in that the pregnant woman had the same power over these unborn fetuses as the slave owners had over their slaves. In a more recent example, Pope John Paul in his "Evangelium Vitae" which explains the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church on issues such as euthanasia, birth control, and most specifically abortion, "Urges people not to support laws which permit abortion and birth control because they defy Gods law." One would tend to believe that with the apparent support of high level right wing politicians and religious leaders in their pockets, the anti-abortion forces would feel confident that their efforts to reverse Roe vs. Wade would be successful. However, this is not the case. Abortions are still quite legal and are being performed every day throughout the country. Even with all the support they have received over the past fifteen years Roe vs. Wade is no closer to being reversed than it was twenty five years ago. Now, with a far more liberal President and Court system, the prospects of the decision being reversed any time soon is practically nil. Perhaps this is part of the reason that a marked increase in attacks on abortion clinics and recent murders of several Doctors and even staff members of clinics around the country has occurred. Just this year an anti-abortion activist named John Salvi was convicted of murdering clinic staff members at an abortion facility in Boston, Massachusetts. It is not simply recently that anti-abortion violence has occurred. "Violence against abortion clinics began almost as soon as Roe vs. Wade was handed down. In the time since, more than forty clinics have been fire bombed. It is not uncommon for clinic personnel to frequently receive death threats" It is unlikely that violence is mandated by the organizational charters of the larger anti-abortion groups. The rhetoric they use coupled with distortion of facts and interpretations of scripture may be enough to cause smaller, more radical, branches to resort to intimidation and violence in attempts to carry out their Agenda. These smaller more violent offshoots of the anti-abortion movement let their actions speak for them. They are frequently arrested for violations that range from civil disobedience to trespassing and harassment. Because abortion is still legal in our country they are then wrong to impede passage of a woman into a clinic. They are wrong to harass the employees, and to trespass on the clinic property. By doing these things, not to mention the bombings and murders, they are infringing upon constitutionally guaranteed rights to privacy. The State subsequently has to step in to protect those rights. Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned the freedom of choice that was granted under that decision is law. If this legal freedom is not protected with the full power and range guaranteed by the Constitution then none of our freedoms and rights are guaranteed. In conclusion, while it is true that state restrictions limit some personal freedoms we must accept, in some instances, those limits as good for all. Our government does not have the responsibility nor the right to make ethical decisions for it's citizens. However, the government does have the responsibility and the authority to protect the legal rights of the people it represents. The Constitution also guarantees us the freedom of speech and the right to dissent. The anti-abortion people have an absolute right to voice their opinions and protest as long as it is done without trampling upon the legal rights of others. However, when any one, or group, attempts to violate the legal rights of others the government not only has the duty but has the Constitutional responsibility to intervene Bibliography: Bibliography 1.) Dr. Schwarz, Stephen. The Moral Questions of Abortion. Sophia Institute Press, Columbus Ohio 1990 2.) Ladd, John. Ethical Issues Relating to Life and Death. Oxford University Press, New York 1979 3.) Kaufman, K. The Abortion Resource Handbook Simon and Schuster Inc. New York New York 1997 4.) Olasky, Marvin A Social History of Abortion in America. Crossways Books New York New York 1992 5.) Thomson, Judith. A Defense of Abortion. In Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol 1 No. 1 1984.

Word Count: 1644