1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- name="GENERATOR" content="github.com/mmarkdown/mmark Mmark Markdown Processor - mmark.miek.nl" -->
<rfc version="3" ipr="none" docName="Request for Discussions RFDN" submissionType="independent" category="info" xml:lang="en" xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" indexInclude="true">
<front>
<title abbrev="On Abortion">On Abortion</title><seriesInfo value="Request for Discussions RFDN" stream="independent" status="informational" name="Internet-Draft"></seriesInfo>
<author initials="A." surname="Yu" fullname="Andrew Yu"><organization>YK Pao School</organization><address><postal><street></street>
</postal><email>andrew@andrewyu.org</email>
<uri>https://www.andrewyu.org/</uri>
</address></author><date/>
<area>Something</area>
<workgroup>Something</workgroup>
<keyword>abortion</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-to-4 majority, "overturning" the precedent of Roe vs Wade, thus putting the legality of abortion into the hand of states. Many states chose to ban abortion.</t>
</abstract>
<note><name>Status of This Memo</name>
<t>This document is currently in the DRAFT status.</t>
<t>This document describes the author's viewpoint. It may or may not represent the ideas of others, but is absolutely not guarenteed so. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.</t>
</note>
</front>
<middle>
<section anchor="background"><name>Background</name>
<t>In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled seven-to-two in favor of Roe's rights to abortion against the state of Texas.<xref target="RVW"></xref> Roe argued for abortion with "privacy", derived from the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. As the U.S. has a precedential judiciary system, this effectively legalizes abortion across the country.</t>
<t>However, as Roe's case was argued for based on privacy rather than body autonomy or similar rights, it left a question into if abortion is indeed a right that women should have. After all, if someone is accused of murder, the suspect's privacy is not a reason to not investigate the case further. Those against abortion often believe that abortion is murder, and thus the privacy argument wouldn't stand long.</t>
<t>In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned this precedent<xref target="DVJ"></xref>, and now the abortion rights of women in the united states are in a void. This memo focuses on discussing the notion of abortion itself, and briefly comments on the decision of the Court.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="fetus-is-life-thus-abortion-is-murder"><name>"Fetus is life, thus abortion is murder."</name>
<t>Some people believe that because fetus is human life, and abortion is nonvoluntary (as in nonvoluntary by the life terminated) termination of human life, thus abortion is murder and is unacceptable.</t>
<t>This reasoning is flawed---nonvoluntary termination of human life, even when the decision-maker understands the consequence of their action, may or not be murder.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="involuntary-termination-of-life-isn-t-always-murder"><name>Involuntary termination of life isn't always murder.</name>
<t>Consider yourself an average person in the United States. You live on paychecks and you're living an average life in a comfortable house. You noticed a poor person, without food, proper clothes, or shelter, sleeping in the street, almost frozen to death. You took them home, giving them food, clothes and shelter. But one day, out of whatever reason you decided to stop supporting that person and remove them from the house back onto the street. You understanded that they will have a hard time finding foot, shelter and clothes. They deceased because of the cold.</t>
<t>The poor person was life, and your decision did cause their decession. But is this murder? Man-slaughter? Any kind of statutory offense? No, not really, it's merely termination of voluntary support that you provided for another person.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="non-explicit-contract"><name>Non-explicit Contract</name>
<t>There is a subtle, but eventually significant difference between helping a person down the street and voluntary pregnency. (Involuntary pregnency is basically "alright, here comes a person at your doorstep, you MUST help them and keep them alive", there's not much to discuss there in my opinion.)</t>
<t>In the last example, the ethicalness of terminating support would be different if you and the person receiving help signed an explicit contract giving you the responsibility to help them but you terminate the support when the contract is still valid.</t>
<t>Indeed, the fetus did not sign a contract with the mother that obligates the mother to carry to term. But similarly, children don't sign contracts with their parents to take care of them, but we consider parents who don't take care of their children and such to be child abuse. How are they different?</t>
</section>
<section anchor="the-difference-between-fetus-and-children"><name>The Difference Between Fetus and Children</name>
<t>Fetus do not have a proper perception of the world. Until late terms of pregnency fetus are unable to think, while children feel, learn and experience the world, building emotions and feelings with others and the world around them.</t>
<t>The value of life depends on its definition. A scientific definition of life which includes bacteria, fungi, parasites, plants, animals and many other forms of life doesn't seem inherently valuable to us---almost all of us don't feel bad killing bacteria with an ultraviolet lamp, don't feel bad killing plants for consumption, and don't feel bad stepping on a mosquito. Many of us don't feel bad consuming animals for food.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references><name>Normative References</name>
<reference anchor="DVJ" target="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf">
<front>
<title>Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.</title>
<author></author>
<date year="2022" month="6"></date>
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RVW" target="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113">
<front>
<title>Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.</title>
<author></author>
<date year="1973" month="1"></date>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
|
