Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.
This is not meant to be a debate of abortion but rather a debate on whether Roe vs Wade could have grounds to be re-examined and if it does have
grounds to be re-examined, what should influence the Court's descision. And lastly, if Kerry's stance is a stance to embrace ignorance.
Having recently reviewed Roe vs Wade
one portion of the
descision stands out to me.
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the
State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this
point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
To me this is saying that when Man's knowledge reaches a point in development to determine when life begins, this question should be answered. It
simply had not reached that point in 1973. I beleive answering this question is fundamental in denying ignorance.
Of medicine, philosophy, and theology, I beleive only science should influence the descision. It is the only one of the three that is objective and
not subjective. The Justices should not allow personal feelings or religious beliefs to interfere with the objective study of this question.
Finally, if Kerry says he will not allow someone to change Roe v Wade, does this mean he would refuse to allow the objective consideration of this
question that was left unanswered in 1973? And would this be refusing to deny ignorance?
As a note, Even though I have attempted to find the answer, I do not know the answer to this question. The web sites I have read in search of this
answer are all anti-abortion, and they can hardly be considered unbiased-- thus they may not be objective.
Also to note, I am pro-life. That is not to say that I am anti-abortion, simply that I believe every life worth being protected. Thus an answer to
this question would directly affect my opinions on abortion.
As a final note, I do not believe that the president of the US should attempt to obfuscate the truth, but rather should seek it and embrace it.
Now, we all have our opinions on abortion and we are all entitled to our opinions. But in order to objectively answer my questions, one must sit aside
their opinions, in order to decide.
To recap the questions:
Should the unanswered question in 1973 be answered?
Should the question be answered objectively?
Is Kerry's refusal of change, refusing to answer this question?
Is refusing to answer this question embracing ignorance?